I will present the opposing argument`s to get debate started.
As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
The history of the Golden Rule (where did that name come from anyway?) predates Jesus, of course. It was expressed as a motto to guide any conventional system of ethics, either in its negative form by Confucius and Buddhist, Hindu and Zoroastrian sages, or in reference only to friends, as in Aristotle's writings: "We should behave to our friends as we would wish our friends to behave toward us."
Jesus' statement was a commentary on Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Some Jewish teaching, interpreting that verse, forbade people to hate their enemies and required them to behave in the same way toward sinners and the righteous. Rabbi Hillel added the negative command, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men."
Jesus, as was his habit, pushed the rule from an outward form of behavior to the inward reality that can't be faked. He returned to the original intent and applied it not only to friends, but to enemies. In effect, he made "Do unto others" undoable with our own resources.
The Golden Rule is not something we can achieve. Rather it is a constant reminder of our need to repent. Our inability to relate to others according to the Golden Rule creates the only condition in which that kind of relationship might be possible--our own repentance.
by Ole Anthony
Paul Treanor makes some very pertinent counter points on the Golden Rule
The so-called Golden Rule, the ethic of transference of perspective, is common to many religions and cultures. That does not make it right. Immanuel Kant, for instance, dismissed it in a footnote. Few ethical precepts are as easy to undermine as the Golden Rule: but unfortunately it just soldiers on, through the millennia. And increasingly, it is proposed as one foundation of a 'global ethic'
The Golden Rule implies that I should transfer my perspective to the person affected, the one standing in front of me who will be affected by my action. But behind them may be another, who is affected by the person standing in front of me. Where does it stop? In society, my help to others will often facilitate their harm to third parties. The pure altruist, who helps everyone, will cause harm. Helping people at random, on the grounds that some of them are good, is no more moral than shooting people at random, on the grounds that some are bad. Insofar as the Golden Rule is interpreted as a principle of one-step-only altruism, it is wrong.
The title gives a dramatic example. What would have happened, if the commanders of Soviet troops in late April 1945 were committed to the Golden Rule, and telepathically in touch with Adolf Hitler? They would have understood his extreme fear and despair, so great that he planned to kill his favourite dog and commit suicide. Who would want that to happen to them? The Golden Rule would suggest they call off the siege of Berlin, and withdraw their troops from the Reich. The western commanders, if they had similar attitudes and telepathic powers, would do the same. Europe would be left in control of Hitler. Now where does that leave the liberation of Dachau?
As I said above, it is farcical to apply tenets like the Golden Rule to historical situations anyway. But its supporters do use it for political purposes, including its application to social transactions involving millions of people. So, note what is missing from the use of the Golden Rule in this example: the commanders are telepathically in touch with only one person. Millions of others think differently. On the other hands millions also supported Hitler to the end. If the decision is to consider their perspective as well, great problems will arise with defining priorities for differing perspectives. The question will arise of whether certain perspectives are fundamental, and can not be overridden.
