The command to love your neighbor as yourself does not, at all, take into consideration the "self" of your neighbor. I don't know where you are getting any of this in the relative quotes/statements. It is an extension of interpretation at best. There is also no mention of "necessity" or "beyond necessity" - no such lines are drawn.
wrong, it does. again you treat others the way you wish to be treated and you expect others to treat you in kind. if they don't, that is their choice, but it leads to prejudicial treatment. tribalism, familialism, egoism, and selfishness are not followers of the golden rule. the rule is like a ruler. the measurement doesn't change when you measure from one end of the ruler to the other. those who change the standard are perverting the rule.
In no way, have I even hinted at anything about the intentions of the neighbor - their slothfulness, or willingness to take advantage is not under scrutiny. I am only concerned with what "yourself" should actualize when taking the statement "love thy neighbor as thyself" at face value.
if i love my neighbor like myself, and i expect to be responsible for myself and my actions, then how is that outside the rule expecting the same for other as self? if i commit a wrong and expect to compensate for it, then why would i not have an expectation of another to do in kind?
Besides... you BOTH teach yourself how to do something out of love for self and execute on the knowledge gained due to love for self. Meaning you learn to fish and go fishing, both in service to yourself. What is the objective distinction between those two activities that makes one more "right" to do for your neighbor and one more "wrong" to do? And this is an especially poignant question if the acts are being done because you are adhering to "love thy neighbor", and, in so doing, they are done out of "love."
love makes things equal, it doesn't make them unequal.
the rule says do unto other
as you would have done unto you. who then is this other that i would have an expectation of? having accepted that one is responsible for one's actions, one expects of the other to be responsible too. the rule doesn't say to exclude others from what one expects of self..there is no difference to be made between self and other as self. to make a difference and have no expectation of the other as self, is prejudicial. the law is blind to forms, it isn't blind to actions.
there is no exceptions to the rule. self is as other self and other self is as self.
there is no rule for this one and another rule for that one. that isn't the golden rule, or law of reciprocity.
true we have no control over another's choices but we do not change the rule and make it prejudicial because someone treats us differently. that perverts the rule. we have no control over anyone else but ourselves. if they do not wish to follow the golden rule, it will be to their own detriment. let them run after their "own" way vs the high way. they will eventually hit a wall.
the golden rule is like an open mind, something can go in and something can go out, but it isn't a one way only in and no out, or out and no way in.
the rule is based on action, it isn't a respecter of persons. for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.
who would expect to receive hate for love? who would expect to receive indifference from attentative? who would expect to receive love for hostility?