Golden Rule vs Platinum Rule - Where the Platinum folks people get it wrong

[Paradox22]

Everyone is familiar with the Golden Rule. Those who don't recognize the name are probably familiar with the principal because that is how many of us were brought up. It is usually expressed as

"Do unto others as you would have done to you."

What is less common is referred to as the Platinum Rule. It is often expressed as

"Do unto others as they would have done to them" *

Each of these "rules" can represent a simplistic normative moral theory of ethical conduct where the former suggests that we do what we judge to be best for someone, and the second is to respect, above all else, a person's autonomy or freedom to be treated as they want to be treated. Proponents of the Platinum Rule as a principal of moral conduct often act like the only argument against it is something like "But what if someone wants you to harm them, such as people who want assisted suicide?" An example of this can be found online in the article "The Corruption of the Golden Rule" where the author makes reference to what he calls the Kevorkian Dilema. * He suggests that if you pair the Platinum Rule with a "do no harm" rule, The Platinum Rule is still superior to the imperative to do what you think is best for others in any given situation.
In my opinion, this Platinum Rule principal has critical flaws because it seems to rely on the assumption that another person's desires are moral and rational.
Should we really respect a person's autonomy if what they want is to harm others without having you interfere? Consider any number of examples where someone is committing a crime and we have the ability to prevent it. Should we treat them as they want to be treated, which probably means standing aside without interfering? In response, the proponent of the Platinum rule might choose to add a second exception. Now they have:

"Do unto others as they would have done to them, except where it means directly harming them, and except where they want to harm others."

But even that is not enough. What if the person does not what to hurt others, but is simply being irrational? Should we stand by and watch as a person places all their money in a paper bag and is about to throw that bag into an incinerator? If you still think we should let that person do it, what if we know that this person has six children that depend on him, and he has no other source of income? Does the proponent of the Platinum Rule say we sit by and watch, respecting their autonomy, or try to come up with some other exception clause to allow a proponent of the Platinum Rule to intervene in such a case?

I think it's clear that the so-called Platinum Rule is not clearly superior to the principal of doing what is best, rather than just what they would prefer. Respecting someone's autonomy and preferences may have practical and moral value, but there are many circumstances where I think most of us would agree that it is a moral imperative to do what we judge is best, not just what they would want.

That is what I think. What do YOU think?

* The Corruption of the Golden Rule | It's Pronounced Metrosexual

 

[Straw Dog]

Very interesting paradox. Yes, most normative moral theories are flawed in a similar fashion. It's a question of intuition vs deliberation...

Could we cut out the middle man? Can we take into account another unique person's natural desires in calculating generally desirable consequences without necessarily labeling their actions 'moral' or 'rational'?

I may be entertaining a moral abolitionist perspective...

 

[RedDragon94]

Everyone is familiar with the Golden Rule. Those who don't recognize the name are probably familiar with the principal because that is how many of us were brought up. It is usually expressed as

"Do unto others as you would have done to you."

What is less common is referred to as the Platinum Rule. It is often expressed as

"Do unto others as they would have done to them" *

Sounds to me like the platinum rule is revised deontology.

Proponents of the Platinum Rule as a principal of moral conduct often act like the only argument against it is something like "But what if someone wants you to harm them, such as people who want assisted suicide?" An example of this can be found online in the article "The Corruption of the Golden Rule" where the author makes reference to what he calls the Kevorkian Dilema. * He suggests that if you pair the Platinum Rule with a "do no harm" rule, The Platinum Rule is still superior to the imperative to do what you think is best for others in any given situation.

I think that assisted suicide is permissible when the person consents to it and is in dire straights. The platinum rule should only apply when a person makes their desires known, obviously we try to do right by people and what they want. We just have to rely on the inner moral compass to tell us when to go along with their desires. And, of course, we cannot go along with a person when they want to do harm to someone.