The Platinum Rule

The golden rule is not the only rule of its kind that is supposedly the sum of all moral obligations.  The silver rule posits that one should not do to others what one would not want done to oneself.  Not only is there the glaring fact that even if this was true, people would still only be acting out of petty subjective preferences (what a person hopes is not inflicted on them only reflects their own personal desires and perceptions) that have nothing to do with whether something is righteous or evil, but there is also the fact that the silver rule does not have anything to do with what one should do except in the sense that one should avoid treatment of others one would not want.  This completely ignores or excludes all obligations to treat someone in a given way because it is their right or because they deserve it in the sense of just punishment or reward.

There is also the platinum rule, which posits that people should do to others as the latter would want done to themselves.  Whereas the golden rule is about treating others as you yourself want to be treated, the platinum rule is about treating others how they wish to be treated.  If someone is crying, for instance, adherence to the golden rule would bring someone who would want to be comforted to offer verbal or physical affection or assistance.  Adherence to the platinum rule would bring someone to do their best to observe how the crying person is acting to see if they even probably want comfort from others (I say probably because I cannot possibly know if other minds exist or what exactly they are experiencing if they do), though there are cases where both would inspire the same action or inaction.  For exame, the golden rule might persuade someone to not try to say comforting words to a crying person because that is what the observer would want if it was them, and the platinum rule would motivate someone to remain silent here if the weeping person seemed to want silence.

The similarities and differences of these two rules are not their most important aspects, though.  What almost no one ever realizes about the golden rule or the platinum rule is what their true ramifications are if they are not at most valid in the context of or alongside other moral obligations.  If someone wanted to be murdered or wanted to be sexually objectified or physically abused, then the platinum rule would lead them to do these things, to murder, sexually objectify, and physically abuse.  The same is true of someone who clings to the golden rule if for some reason that is how they wish to be treated.  Empathy or yielding to the wishes of others (applying the platinum rule) and doing what one would subjectively wish to be done to oneself (applying the golden rule) are both not at all what many people think they are, and it is not difficult to realize any of this!

Even more foundationally, the more significant fact is not that the golden and platinum rules are without any other truths or concepts to confine them doorways to cruelty that their adherents are trying to avoid--though this is a hypocritical irony that completely contradicts the motives behind believing either rule.  The even more fundamental truth is that whims, perceptions, and emotions have altogether nothing to do with whether anything at all is morally good or evil, which in turn means they are neither proof of nor evidence for (or against) a given moral stance.  This grand logical truth about moral metaphysics and epistemology is knowable independent of ever thinking of the silver, golden, or platinum rules because it has nothing to do with subjectivity.  Conscience and preference have to to with personal feelings or inclinations, and morality, if it exists, is what one should do regardless of desire.

Neither what I want nor what others want determines anything but our own desires and whims, no matter how fiercely powerful they are.  Neither what I or anyone else wishes makes something morally valid or invalid, nor does it even make morality itself exist or not exist.  In this regard, the platinum rule is wholly fallacious and irrelevant to the very foundation of all moral issues, for it at most would only be potentially valid when there is no obligation to do something regardless of what other people wish and multiple courses of action are morally permissible.  It is simply that no one's preferences make something, good, evil, or permissible.  Within established moral restrictions, elements of the platinum rule are rational and even Biblical.  The same is true of the golden rule.  Beyond this, both rules are objectively false and in fact, when acted upon consistently, lead to incredible hypocrisy and emotionalistic savagery as people's desires change.