Living the Golden Rule/Working Through Common Misunderstandings

Working Through Common Misunderstandings
Simplistic interpretations of the golden rule can lead to obviously incorrect conclusions. These fallacies often lead people to dismiss the golden rule as unhelpful, and discourage them from understanding it more deeply. Here are several common fallacies along with explanations of correct golden rule interpretations.

Literal GR Fallacy
It is a fallacy to assume that everyone has the same likes, dislikes, and needs that we have.

A simplistic interpretation, taking the words “as you want to be treated” literally and out of context can lead to absurd results in several situations. Consider this story of a monkey and a fish. There once lived a monkey and a fish. The monkey followed the golden rule, always trying to treat others as he wanted to be treated. But he sometimes applied the golden rule foolishly. Now one day a big flood came. As the threatening waters rose, the foolish monkey climbed a tree to safety. Then he looked down and saw a fish struggling in the water. He thought, "I wanted to be lifted from the water." So he reached down and grabbed the fish from the water, lifting him to safety on a high branch. Of course that didn't work. The fish died. The error was caused because the monkey applied the golden rule literally “treat others as you want to be treated” without considering the differences between monkeys and fish. Here is another example: Broccoli is Eileen’s favorite vegetable. Wanting to please her husband she serves him broccoli for dinner. Unfortunately broccoli tastes very bitter to her husband, and he will not eat the vegetable. Again the error was caused because Eileen applied the golden rule literally “treat others as you want to be treated” without considering the differences between her and her husband. If instead she had thought about her husband’s situation and asked “what is my husband’s favorite dish” she would have been using the golden rule wisely.

In applying the golden rule, we need to know the other’s situation, which may differ from ours; the other person may have different likes, dislikes, and needs. We need to imagine ourselves in the other’s situation, and we need to ask “how do I desire that I be treated if I were in that situation?”

Rephrasing the golden rule to consider being in the same-situation helps with many cases:
 * I ask a doctor to remove my infected appendix. Should I then remove the Doctor’s appendix? No, because the doctor has a healthy appendix in this situation and in no need for surgery.
 * I love broccoli, should I insist on serving to others? No, because although broccoli is my favorite vegetable, many others are in a situation where they do not like eating broccoli.
 * I love listening to music by Joe Cocker. Should I broadcast Joe Cocker songs loudly through my backyard speakers so that the neighbors can enjoy his music? No, they may have different musical tastes, and in their situation may prefer quiet at this time.
 * I am a real party animal. Should I assume my friends also love to party hardy and drop in unannounced to bring the revelry to them? No, many people, especially introverts, enjoy quiet time alone in many situations.

Harry Gensler introduces the mnemonic “KITA” to help us remember the steps in avoiding this fallacy.
 * K—Know—“How would my action affect others?”
 * I—Imagine—“What would it be like to have this done to me in this situation?” Accurate empathy or asking the other person what they prefer can help here.
 * T—Test for consistency—“Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?”
 * A—Act toward others only as you’re willing to be treated in the same situation.

In choosing vegetables to serve for dinner, begin by seeking to know how being presented with a particular vegetable will affect your partner or guests. Imagine what it would be like to have a food you dislike served to you. Imagine what foods they may like. Test the consistency by asking “am I willing to be served a vegetable I dislike?” Act, by finding out your partner’s or guests’ food preferences, and then serving them dishes they prefer.

Soft Golden Rule Fallacy
It is a fallacy to conclude that living the golden rule requires we should never act against what others want. Consider these examples. Four year old Maddie wanted to put her fingers into the electrical outlet. If her mother were also a curious toddler, she would also want to explore the electrical outlet. Does the golden rule suggest this is a good idea? No, the mother needs to ask about her present reaction to a hypothetical case: “Am I now willing that if I were in the toddler’s situation I be protected from harm by being stopped from putting my fingers into electrical outlets?” Of course the answer is yes. In a second example: A criminal has just robbed a bank. The police arrive. Does the golden rule require the police accommodate the criminal’s preference and let the criminal go free? No, the police need to ask about their present reaction to a hypothetical case: “Am I willing that the police put me in jail if I do the things that this criminal has done?” The answer is yes, and so the arrest proceeds. Sometimes we need to act against what others want. We may need to stop a baby from doing unsafe things, refuse a salesperson who wants to sell us inferior, unwanted, or overpriced products; fail a student who has not done the coursework, defend ourselves against attacks, or restrain a dangerous criminal.

Doormat GR Fallacy
It is a fallacy to assume we should ignore our own interests. Consider these examples. Helpful Harriet cannot say no when she is asked to help someone. Her brother asks to borrow $50,000 and she lends it, knowing it will never be repaid. A neighbor needs a ride to the airport early every Wednesday morning, and she agrees to drive him there. She never turns down a request for a favor and her life has been taken over by committee work she no longer enjoys, running errands for people who could take care of themselves, and rescuing adults from problems they should never have encountered. In a second example: Although Guilty Gladys does turn down requests for favors, she always feels guilty about not helping everyone who asks. This is almost as stressful as taking the time to do the favors. The golden rule does not force us to do whatever others what. The golden rule lets us say no if we are willing to have others say no to us in similar situations. The golden rule lets us refuse another’s request if we are willing that others refuse us when we make such requests in similar situations. That is how you treat others as you would consent to being treated in a similar situation.

The golden rule is as much about your welfare as it is about the welfare of others. If you are a doormat, repeat to yourself, “As others have needs and rights that ought to be respected, so to do I.” Or more simply, “My needs are as important as any others.”

Third Parties GR Fallacy
It is a fallacy to assume we should consider only ourselves and the other person. Consider these examples. A lazy student often skipped class, neglected to do the coursework, then at the end of the year pleaded with the teacher to give her an “A” in the course.

An impatient and inconsiderate driver attempts to cut into a long line of cars exiting the freeway. The driver expects you to be kind in the face of this selfishness, and let him pull into the line in front of you.

A mining company lobbied the government to allow them to continue with mountain top removal operations to gain an immediate economic benefit at the cost of forever destroying the landscape and impacting the environment. These examples ignore the impact of their actions on (unnamed but very real) third parties. The lazy student is diminishing the reputation of the school and the value of good grades earned by the efforts of conscientious students—and she is encouraging a very harmful situation whereby grades depend on student persuasion rather than student achievement. The inconsiderate driver is delaying all the drivers waiting in line, and setting a dangerous example. The mining company is ignoring the legitimate claims others, such as people living in the region and future generations, who want to enjoy a wilderness environment that has not been destroyed by mining operations.

The generalized golden rule has us satisfy the golden rule when applied toward each affected party. “Act only as you’re willing for anyone to act in the same situation, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself or others.” The affected parties may include future generations. This leads to the carbon rule:

“Keep the earth livable for future generations, as we want past generations to have done for us.”

Easy GR Fallacy
The golden rule can be applied at different levels of sophistication, but a childlike understanding (as exemplified by the literal golden rule), while sufficient for children is not sufficient for adults. It is a fallacy to assume the golden rule gives an infallible test of right and wrong that can be applied in seconds. The decision is likely to be wrong if the beliefs or assumptions used to make the decision are wrong. Consider these examples. Thinking it would prevent anoxia, it was common medical practice in the 1940s and 1950s to put premature babies in incubators and crank up the oxygen. An epidemic of blindness among some 10,000 premature babies in the 1940s and the early 1950s became one of the great medical mysteries of the postwar era. It was later determined that the extra oxygen, given with the intent of helping, was causing the blindness in premature babies. Acting on incorrect information, healthcare workers were doing harm when they believed they were treating their patients as they wanted to be treated. In another tragic example: Prior to the 1970s, Bangladesh had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Ineffective water purification and sewage systems as well as periodic monsoons and flooding exacerbated these problems. As a solution, UNICEF and the World Bank advocated the use of wells to tap into deeper groundwater. Millions of wells were constructed as a result. Because of this action, infant mortality and diarrheal illness were reduced by fifty percent. However, with over 8 million wells constructed, approximately one in five of these wells is now contaminated with arsenic above the government's drinking water standard. Arsenic contamination of the groundwater in Bangladesh is a serious problem. People who contributed to the UNICEF fund and aid workers who worked to build wells were actually doing harm when they thought they were treating the people as they wanted to be treated. In these examples, the “K” step of KITA, that requires gaining accurate knowledge of the situation, failed. The golden rule relies on accurate information to ensure good actions. Know how you know.

Assignments throughout this course will require increased sophistication in applying the golden rule as the course progresses.

Too Simple or too complex GR Fallacy.
It is a fallacy to believe that the golden rule is so simple that a kindergarten-level understanding is sufficient, or so complex that only philosophers can understand it. Instead we must work to understand the golden rule at a level corresponding to the real problems we face as we mature and our lives become more complex.

An important objective of this course is to provide practice in applying the golden rule at your present level of understanding and moral maturity. Learning to spot the fallacies described above, recall the incorrect and correct examples, and apply correct reasoning to problems you face will improve your moral decision making.

Consistency
Consistency—the virtue of fidelity—is at the core of the golden rule. The golden rule rests on two basic consistency requirements:
 * 1) We must be impartial; making similar evaluations about similar action, regardless of the individuals involved. When we are impartial the same moral beliefs apply regardless of who they apply to. Impartiality requires our willingness to exchange “self” for “other” in similar situations.
 * 2) We must also be conscientious; living in harmony with our moral beliefs. When we are conscientious we align our actions with our beliefs. Conscientiousness requires our willingness to exchange “does” for “believe” in similar situations.

These two consistency requirements ensure we follow the golden rule if we wish to be consistent. The golden rule is actually a theorem that can be proven as a logical consequence of these two consistency principles.

Consider again how grandpa is treated in the story of “The Old Man and His Grandson.” If you are both conscientious and impartial, then you won’t make grandpa eat apart unless you are willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation. This graphic illustrates the underlying logic in more detail:

Here is the same argument presented as a narrative:
 * 1) You make grandpa eat apart.
 * 2) If you are conscientious, that is, if your actions are congruent with your beliefs, then your beliefs are implied by your actions so:
 * 3) You believe it would be alright for you to make grandpa eat apart.
 * 4) If you are impartial, that is, if the beliefs you apply to others also apply to you, then:
 * 5) You believe it would be alright for you to be made to eat apart in the same situation.
 * 6) If you are conscientious, then you act based on your beliefs, so:
 * 7) You are willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation.

The golden rule provides a shortcut from step 1 to step 7. If you have difficulty applying the golden rule directly, perhaps breaking it down into these component steps can be helpful in clarifying your thinking.

Assignment
Please select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {GR tells us to put ourselves in the place of the other person. But this is logically impossible, since if I were the other person then I wouldn't be me. - True. + False.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. Please try again.
 * Correct! We only have to imagine what it would be like to be in the place of the other person. Imagining ourselves in different situations is a common experience. We do it when we watch movies or read novels. There's no logical impossibility here.

It's often difficult to imagine ourselves, in a vivid and accurate way, in the place of another. And we never do it perfectly. But it's something that we can try to develop.

{The golden rule is an invention of modern western culture. - True + False.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. Please try again.
 * Correct! St. Augustine in the middle ages claimed that all cultures agree on the golden rule. This is an exaggeration, but not far from the truth. The earliest formulations that we know of go back to Buddha, Confucius, and Zoroaster -- none of whom is either modern or western.

The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard that different cultures could appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.

{The literal form of the golden rule says: "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X." To this one might object that then - if you were a little boy who loved to fight and who wanted your sister to fight with you, then you'd have to fight with her. - if you were a parent who wanted your child to refrain from punishing you, then you'd have to refrain from punishing your child. + both of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The others are also good objections. Please try again.
 * Incorrect. The others are also good objections. Please try again.
 * Correct. To avoid these and other objections, we need to formulate and understand the golden rule in a more sophisticated manner.

{Ima Robber has a friend X who asks for help in robbing Y. Ima desires that if he were in the place of (fellow robber) X then he be helped to rob Y. But Ima also desires that if he were in the place of (victim) Y then people not collaborate to rob him. What does GR tell Ima to do? - Ima is to help X to rob Y. - Ima is to refrain from helping X to rob Y. - Both are implied by GR + Neither is implied by GR.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The defective if-then formulation would imply this.
 * Incorrect. The defective if-then formulation would imply this.
 * Incorrect. The defective if-then formulation would imply this. So facts plus the defective if-then formulation would imply contradictions.
 * Correct. GR tells Ima to be consistent in his treatment of others -- whether this other be X or Y. Ima has to satisfy GR toward both parties. To do this, he must come to consent to a certain kind of action being done regardless of where he imagines himself in the situation.

{Correct variations on the golden rule require that we treat others only in ways that we're willing to be treated. - in an imagined relevantly similar situation. - in actual situations that we regard as relevantly similar. - in an imagined exactly similar situation. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * All the formulations are correct. "Relevantly similar" situations are more realistic than "exactly similar" ones, since they are closer to situations that we occupy in real life; this may be an advantage. To avoid controversies about which properties are relevant, we might switch all those that we even suspect may be relevant.
 * All the formulations are correct. I violate GR consistency if I act to do A to X, believe that it was wrong for another to have done A to me in the past, and believe that the two cases are relevantly similar (believing that, because of features that they have in common, both actions fit in the same moral category).
 * This is our usual formulation. But the other formulations are correct too..
 * All the formulations are correct and are provable as theorems.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {The literal form of the golden rule says: "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X." This literal GR - is a basic first principle of formal ethics. - is a clear principle with sensible consequences - both of the above. + none of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The literal GR is deeply flawed.
 * Incorrect. It has some very absurd consequences.
 * Incorrect. Neither!
 * This literal GR can entail absurdities. Suppose that you want your doctor to remove your appendix. Then you are to remove your doctor's appendix! There are also cases where facts plus this literal GR entails a self-contradiction. The golden rule is an important principle -- but it needs a better formulation.

{Correct variations on the golden rule require that we treat others only in ways that we're willing in like circumstances - to have our son or daughter treated. - to be treated ourselves. + both of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. This formulation is correct too. We could imagine someone dear to us on the receiving end of the action.
 * Incorrect. This is our usual formulation. But the other formulation is correct too.
 * Correct. Both are correct variations on the golden rule and are provable as theorems.

{The golden rule gives - a sufficient condition for permissible action. - a necessary condition for permissible action. + neither.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. This view claims "If you consent to the idea of A being done to you in an exactly similar situation, then it's permissible for you to do A to X." This can lead to absurd results when the person has evil desires.
 * Incorrect. This view claims "It's permissible for you to do A to X, only if you consent to the idea of A being done to you in an exactly similar situation." This is equivalent to saying "If you don't consent to the idea of A being done to you in an exactly similar situation, then you ought not to do A to X." These can lead to absurd or self-contradictory results when the person has evil or inconsistent desires.
 * Correct. The golden rule doesn't give necessary or sufficient conditions for individual permissible actions. Rather, it forbids certain inconsistent combinations. And satisfying GR is a necessary condition for being conscientious and impartial.

{The duty to follow the golden rule holds without exception. - True + False
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect
 * All our consistency duties are subject to implicit qualification QF (see Section 2.3). The duty to follow GR is overridden or doesn't apply if, for example, Dr. Evil will destroy the world unless you violate GR, you're a small child who can't grasp the idea of being on the receiving end of the action, or you're psychologically unable to follow GR. In practice, these qualifications aren't very important.

{Suppose that I want to steal Pat's computer. To apply the golden rule, I'd imagine myself in Pat's exact place. I'd ask myself, "Do I consent to the idea of someone stealing my computer in such a case?" If the answer is NO, then it follows that I ought not to steal Pat's computer. - True + False
 * type=""}
 * This reasoning may seem sensible, but the if-then form of the golden rule that it uses can lead to absurd results if applied to a person with evil or inconsistent desires.
 * The golden rule is a consistency principle, prescribing that our actions (toward another) be in harmony with our desires (about how we be treated in similar circumstances). It doesn't tell us specifically how we ought to act. If I steal Pat's computer, but don't consent the idea of my computer being stolen in an exactly similar situation, then I'm inconsistent. And I ought not to be inconsistent in this way.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {Suppose that you want to discipline your child. GR would have you ask: - "If I were in my child's exact place, would I then (as a child) consent to being disciplined?" + "Do I now (as an adult) consent to the idea that if I were in my child's exact place then I'd be disciplined?" - Both questions mean the same thing.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. If you were in your child's exact place, you'd have the desire that the child presently has -- you'd desire not to be disciplined. GR, formulated this way, would forbid you to discipline your child.
 * Correct. This question tests your present consistency.
 * Incorrect. There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

{While we've formulated the golden rule as an imperative or an ought judgment, we could also formulate it in terms of  - the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation). - hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR"). - a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR"). + any of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. This accords with an "ethics of virtue" approach, which would talk about impartiality, conscientiousness, and the golden rule in terms of internalized dispositions to behave in certain ways. But other approaches are possible too.
 * Incorrect. This accords with an "ethics of hypothetical imperatives" approach, which sees ethics as about how to achieve our goals. But other approaches are possible too.
 * Incorrect. This accords with an "ethics of description" approach, which sees ethics as describing different sorts of behavior. But other approaches are possible too.
 * Correct. Different approaches might prefer different ways to formulate GR. I see formal ethics as embracing all these formulations.

{Ima Masochist desires that if she were in the place of X (a nonmasochist) then she be tortured. - GR entails that Ima ought to torture X. + Ima could torture X and yet satisfy GR.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The defective if-then GR would entail this. Properly understood, GR only imposes a consistency condition. It doesn't tell Ima what to do.
 * GR doesn't tell Ima to do anything evil. But Ima could satisfy GR; so GR shows a certain weakness here. The problem lies in taking GR by itself. GR involves factual understanding, imagination, and desires. Any of these may be flawed and further criticized. We especially need to criticize Ima's self-hatred. Ima needs to understand herself better (including why she has such desires), come to appreciate her self-worth, and experience positive ways of living. If Ima develops a love for herself, then GR could help extend this to love-of-others. So GR may not suffice by itself to show Ima her error; but it may suffice when combined with other factors.

{The golden rule applies to how we act toward + other sentient beings. - other human beings - other members of our tribe or social group.
 * type=""}
 * Correct. The derivation of GR from the axioms (universalizability, prescriptivity, and rationality) works regardless of the kind of being that X is. If it's all right for me to hit X, then it would be all right for me to be hit if I were in X's exact place. This holds regardless of whether X is my next door neighbor, someone in another country, or even my pet dog. It also holds if X is a nail; but here the application is vacuous -- since (a) I can't coherently imagine myself in the exact place of the nail, and (b) even if I could, then I wouldn't care whether I'd be hit in such circumstances.
 * Incorrect. There's nothing in the GR derivation that limits its scope to human beings.
 * Incorrect. There's nothing in the GR derivation that limits its scope to members of our tribe or social group.

{The literal golden rule says: "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X." A good objection to this is that it implies - "To a patient: if you want the doctor to remove your appendix, then remove the doctor's appendix." - "To a masochist: if you want X to torture you, then torture X." + both are good objections. - neither is a good objection.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The literal GR assumes that what is good for you (like an appendix operation) must be good for the other person. But people might be in very different circumstances. The masochist case raises another good objection.
 * The literal GR assumes that you have good desires about how you be treated. But your desires might be based on ignorance or self-hatred. The appendix case raises another good objection.
 * Correct. To avoid such problems, we need to formulate GR in a more sophisticated manner. GR needs to take account of flawed desires (the masochist case) and differences in circumstances (the appendix case).
 * Incorrect. Both are good objections. Both are implausible and yet follow from the literal GR.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {The practical value of the golden rule is that - it concretely applies ideals like fairness, concern, and impartiality. - it doesn't assume any specific theoretical approach to ethics. - it motivates us. - it counteracts our limited sympathies. - it engages our reasoning, instead of imposing an answer. - it helps us to see the point behind specific moral rules. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Incorrect. This, and more.
 * Correct. If you had to give one sentence to express what morality is about, you couldn't do better than the golden rule.

{Suppose that you're thinking about robbing a person who is asleep. GR would have you ask: + "Do I now (while awake) desire that if I were in this sleeping person's exact place then I be robbed?" - "If I were in this sleeping person's exact place, would I then (while asleep) desire to be robbed?" - Both questions mean the same thing.
 * type=""}
 * Correct. This question tests whether you are consistent now (while awake) by inquiring about your present attitude toward a hypothetical case. This is what GR requires.
 * Incorrect. Does a person who is asleep have such desires?
 * Incorrect. No! Wake up!

{One could satisfy GR and still act wrongly. + True - False
 * type=""}
 * Correct. Ima Masochist tortures others and desires that she be tortured in similar circumstances. Ima satisfies GR and yet acts wrongly. GR is a consistency principle -- not a direct guide to action. It doesn't tell us which individual acts are right or wrong; it just tells us to be consistent. We might be consistent and still act wrongly. On the other hand, if the other elements that GR depends on (such as understanding, imagination, and desires -- see Chapter 7) are in proper working order, then we'll generally tend to act rightly toward others if we follow GR.
 * Incorrect.

{Suppose that you act to do A to another but are unwilling to have A done to you in the same situation; you violate GR and your action-desire combination is inconsistent. Which should you change -- your action or your desire? - You should change the action. Since you are unwilling to have A done to you, you shouldn't do A to another. - You should change your desire. Since you act to do A to another, you should consent to the idea of A being done to you. + Either may be defective.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. Perhaps your action is fine but your desire is defective!
 * Incorrect. Perhaps your desire is fine but your action is defective!
 * Correct. When we violate GR, usually our desires are fine but our actions are defective. So a rough rule is that, unless we have a special reason to doubt our desires, we should change how we act toward the other person. Various things could lead us to question our desires. Maybe other people criticize our desires. Or maybe our desires rest on ignorance and early upbringing. Chapter 7 sketches how to make our desires more rational.

{Correct formulations of the golden rule involve - a don't-combine form. - a present attitude to a hypothetical situation. - a similar situation qualifier. + all of the above. Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. You need "don't-combine" instead of "if-then." But you need more besides this.
 * Incorrect. GR needs to refer to your present desire about how you be treated in a hypothetical case. But you need more besides this.
 * Incorrect. You need something like "in an exactly similar situation" or "in the reversed situation." But you need more besides this.
 * Correct. If any of these factors are lacking, then the formulation will likely lead to absurdities and won't be provable from our axioms.

{In applying the golden rule to someone who is confused, senile, or in a coma, we should ask + what we now desire be done to us in a hypothetical or future case in which we picture ourselves as confused, senile, or in a coma. - what we'd desire if we were confused, senile, or in a coma.
 * type=""}
 * Correct. This is more sensible. This appeals to our present attitude toward a hypothetical or future situation.
 * Incorrect. We'd have confused and irrational desires -- hardly a good basis for deciding what to do!

{The golden rule tells you to treat others - as they'd treat you if the situation were reversed. - as they wish to be treated. - as they treat you. - as they wish to treat you. - as they in turn treat others. + as you want to be treated.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. This is a creative misinterpretation!
 * Incorrect. This has absurd results if the other person has irrational or inconsistent desires -- or if one person wants you to do A while another wants you not to do A.
 * Incorrect. This implies the law of retaliation: "If X hurts you, then hurt X." Even though this is quite different from the golden rule, the two are often confused.
 * Incorrect. This is a creative misinterpretation!
 * Incorrect. This is like "Do good to good people and do bad to bad people." This isn't what the golden rule teaches.
 * Correct. Exactly! This alone is required by consistency (by conscientiousness and impartiality).

{The golden rule presumes religious beliefs -- especially the belief in a loving God who is the Creator and Father of us all. - True + False
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. Many atheists support the golden rule for nonreligious reasons. This seems to be a coherent view. On the other hand, GR has been taught by the great world religions and fits nicely into religious perspectives. For example, Christianity sees the world as created by a loving God who calls us all to love one another as part of one big family; it see the origin and destiny of the world as in harmony with GR. Religious people would see an atheistic GR ethics as incomplete and as existing in an alien environment.
 * Correct. Many atheists support the golden rule for nonreligious reasons. This seems to be a coherent view. On the other hand, GR has been taught by the great world religions and fits nicely into religious perspectives. For example, Christianity sees the world as created by a loving God who calls us all to love one another as part of one big family; it see the origin and destiny of the world as in harmony with GR. Religious people would see an atheistic GR ethics as incomplete and as existing in an alien environment.

{It's difficult to satisfy the golden rule. + True - False
 * type=""}
 * Correct. It's difficult for most of us. All our consistency principles are hard to satisfy. Since we have limited intellectual clarity, we find it hard to be logically consistent in our beliefs. Since we have limited self-control, we find ends-means consistency difficult. Since we have a tendency toward selfishness, we find GR difficult.
 * Incorrect. A saint might complain that our GR isn't demanding enough. GR is phrased in terms of how we consent to being treated, or how we are (minimally) willing to be treated ourselves. This doesn't call us to heroic generosity so much as to minimally acceptable standards. If you're a saint, you might want to go further -- to treat others with the generosity with which you'd prefer to be treated. This GR goes beyond the demands of my system of formal ethics.

{The defenders of the golden rule include - Confucius - Buddha - Jesus Christ - Rabbi Hillel - Baha'i, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism, Taoism, Urantianism, and Zoroastrianism + All of the above
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. And the others too!
 * Incorrect. And the others too!
 * Incorrect. And the others too!
 * Incorrect. And the others too!
 * Incorrect. And the others too!
 * Correct. All the major world religions endorse GR and many put it at the center of how we are to live. Jesus Christ and the Rabbi Hillel, for example, used it to summarize the Jewish Scriptures; and Confucius used it to summarize his teachings. GR is the wisdom of the ages -- not the fad of the moment.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

{The three-party version of GR says "Don't act in a given way toward X and Y without consenting to the idea of this act being done when you imagine yourself in the place of X and also consenting to the idea of this act being done when you imagine yourself in the place of Y." + True - False
 * type=""}
 * Correct. The n-party version of GR would say: "Don't act in a given way without consenting to the idea of this act being done in this kind of situation regardless of where you're placed in the situation."
 * Incorrect.

{The positive GR says "If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X" -- while the negative GR says "If you want X not to do A to you, then don't do A to X." How do the two compare? - The positive form tells us to do good to others, while the negative form just tells us not to harm others. + The two forms are logically and historically equivalent.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect.
 * Correct. The two are logically equivalent, since we can derive one from the other by substituting "omit doing A" for "do A" and then simplifying. The two are historically equivalent, since the various traditions tend to mix beneficence and nonmaleficence duties in a balanced way, regardless of their positive or negative GR preference.

{About how many correctly formulated variations on the golden rule are there? - Two. - Ten - One hundred. + Over a thousand. There are an even greater number of misformulations -- which entail absurdities or contradictions and aren't provable from the axioms. I've come up with about 45,360 such misformulations. People who criticize "the" golden rule as having absurd implications are usually criticizing a bad form.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. The two great commandments? There are more than two.
 * Incorrect. The ten commandments? There are more than ten.
 * Incorrect. There are even more than this!
 * Harry Gensler has come up with about 6,480 variations -- all of which are provable from the axioms and don't entail absurdities or contradictions. But the number keeps growing. Thus the golden rule is more a family of related principles than it is a single principle.

{"If you don't consent to the idea of someone doing A to you in the reversed situation, then you ought not to do A to another" - is a GR theorem. + is a nontheorem.
 * type=""}
 * Incorrect. We need a don't-combine form, not an if-then form.
 * Correct. Suppose that you're a Nazi and don't consent to the idea of someone letting you live in a reversed situation in which you're Jewish. The formula would then entail "You ought not to let this person live." But this is absurd! The possibility of such fanatical desires ruins if-then formulations of the golden rule. The don't-combine formulation is better.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {"Suppose that you're a parent who has so much concern for your children that you never think of your own needs. But you think that it would be wrong for your children to live in a similar way when they grow up. Are you consistent?" - Yes -- since you follow the golden rule toward your children. + No -- since you are acting in a way that you think it would be wrong for others to act in similar circumstances. We think of people as selfish and having little concern for others. But many have too little concern for themselves. Laziness, fear, habit, and lack of self-esteem can drive us into self-destructive ways of living. Our approach sees the importance of both concern for others and concern for ourselves.
 * type=""}
 * There are other consistency conditions besides the golden rule.
 * You violate the GR analogue called the "self-regard principle." You treat yourself in a way that you aren't willing to have others (especially those you most care about) treat themselves in similar circumstances.

{"President Kennedy appealed to the golden rule in arguing that " - Americans should vote for him instead of for Nixon. + racial segregation was wrong. - cutting taxes would promote the economy. - the Russians ought to withdraw their missiles from Cuba.
 * type=""}
 * Huh?
 * Kennedy asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color. They were to imagine themselves being black -- and being told that they thus couldn't vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure that they wouldn't -- and yet this is how they treated others. He said the "heart of the question is whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."
 * I guess all this happened before you were born.
 * That's not a bad guess.

{"The golden rule applies to our actions toward " - other members of our tribe or social group. - other human beings. + other sentient beings.
 * type=""}
 * GR is derived from the general duties to be conscientious (to live in harmony with our moral beliefs) and impartial (to make similar evaluations about similar actions). Neither of these duties is restricted to just how we treat our tribe or social group.
 * GR is derived from the general duties to be conscientious (to live in harmony with our moral beliefs) and impartial (to make similar evaluations about similar actions). Neither of these duties is restricted to just how we treat humans.
 * GR is derived from the general duties to be conscientious (to live in harmony with our moral beliefs) and impartial (to make similar evaluations about similar actions). Neither of these duties is restricted to just how we treat humans or members of our tribe or social group. Consider "Don't step on X without consenting to the idea of your being stepped on if you were in X's exact place." This holds regardless of whether X is a friend, a stranger, or a dog. It also holds if X is a rock. But GR is vacuous when applied to rocks -- since I don't care about whether I be stepped on in the place of the rock. Rocks feel no pain.

{"The literal golden rule (LR) says: "If you want X to do something to you, then do this same thing to X." To this one might object that LR tells " - a patient: If you want the doctor to remove your appendix, then remove the doctor's appendix. - a violent little boy who loves to fight: If you want your sister to fight with you, then fight with her. - a masochist who wants to be tortured: If you want Jones to torture you, then torture Jones. + All of the above are objections.
 * type=""}
 * The others are also good objections.
 * The others are also good objections.
 * The others are also good objections.
 * To avoid these and other objections, we need to formulate and understand the golden rule in a more sophisticated manner.

{"We follow GR because it accords with our feelings " - cultural-relativist justification + subjectivist justification - self-interest justification - supernatualist justification - intuitionist justification
 * type=""}
 * We follow GR because because society demands this <=> cultural-relativist justification
 * We follow GR because it accords with our feelings <=> subjectivist justification
 * We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves <=> self-interest justification
 * We follow GR because it's God's law <=> supernatualist justification
 * GR is a self-evident truth <=> intuitionist justification

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {"GR is a self-evident truth " - cultural-relativist justification + intuitionist justification - self-interest justification - supernatualist justification - subjectivist justification
 * type=""}
 * We follow GR because because society demands this <=> cultural-relativist justification
 * GR is a self-evident truth <=> intuitionist justification
 * We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves <=> self-interest justification
 * We follow GR because it's God's law <=> supernatualist justification
 * We follow GR because it accords with our feelings <=> subjectivist justification

{"We follow GR because it's God's law " - cultural-relativist justification + supernatualist justification - self-interest justification - intuitionist justification - subjectivist justification
 * type=""}
 * We follow GR because because society demands this <=> cultural-relativist justification
 * We follow GR because it's God's law <=> supernatualist justification
 * We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves <=> self-interest justification
 * GR is a self-evident truth <=> intuitionist justification
 * We follow GR because it accords with our feelings <=> subjectivist justification

{"What is the best match? We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves  " - cultural-relativist justification + self-interest justification - supernatualist justification - intuitionist justification - subjectivist justification
 * type=""}
 * We follow GR because because society demands this <=> cultural-relativist justification
 * We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves <=> self-interest justification
 * We follow GR because it's God's law <=> supernatualist justification
 * GR is a self-evident truth <=> intuitionist justification
 * We follow GR because it accords with our feelings <=> subjectivist justification

{"What is the best match? We follow GR because because society demands this " - self-interest justification + cultural-relativist justification - supernatualist justification - intuitionist justification
 * type=""}
 * We follow GR because then people will treat us better, we'll avoid social penalties, and we'll feel better about ourselves <=> self-interest justification
 * We follow GR because because society demands this <=> cultural-relativist justification
 * We follow GR because it's God's law <=> supernatualist justification
 * GR is a self-evident truth <=> intuitionist justification

{"What is your answer? Suppose that you explain the golden rule to your child, and then ask, 'If someone hits you, what would the golden rule say to do?' Your child answers, 'Hit him back. Treat others as they treat you.'Does your child have a correct understanding of the golden rule? " - Yes -- and he'd probably get 100% on these exercises! + No -- he needs to read Gensler's ethics book!
 * type=""}
 * The golden rule tells us to treat others "as we want to be treated." It doesn't tell us to treat others "as they treat us." "Treat others as they treat you" is closer to the law of retaliation ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"): if someone knocks out your eye, then you are to knock out their eye.
 * The golden rule tells us to treat others "as we want to be treated." It doesn't tell us to treat others "as they treat us." "Treat others as they treat you" is closer to the law of retaliation ("an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"): if someone knocks out your eye, then you are to knock out their eye.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

{"Defenders of the golden rule include " - Jesus Christ - Rabbi Hillel - Confucius - Baha'i, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Taoism + all of the above
 * type=""}
 * And the others too!
 * And the others too!
 * And the others too!
 * And the others too!
 * All the major world religions endorse GR and many put it at the center of how we are to live. Jesus Christ and the Rabbi Hillel, for example, used it to summarize the Jewish Scriptures; and Confucius used it to summarize his teachings. GR is the wisdom of the ages -- not the fad of the moment.

{"The literal golden rule says: 'If you want X to do something to you, then do this same thing to X.' This literal GR " - is a clear principle with sensible consequences - is a basic first principle of ethics. - both of the above. + none of the above.
 * type=""}
 * It has some very absurd consequences.
 * The literal GR is deeply flawed.
 * Neither!
 * This literal GR can entail absurdities. Suppose that you want your doctor to remove your appendix. Then you are to remove your doctor's appendix! The golden rule is an important principle -- but it needs a better formulation.

{"'Love your neighbor' and our golden rule " + are complementary. - sometimes conflict. - are equivalent in meaning.
 * type=""}
 * Love is the highest motive for following GR (which we also might follow for lower motives like habit or self-interest). If we follow GR out of love, then we do it because we care about others for their own sake. GR, in turn, gives a workable way to operationalize the somewhat vague idea of "loving your neighbor." To love X in the GR way, get to know X as well as you can, imagine yourself in the X's place as vividly and accurately as you can, and act toward X only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation.
 * Our GR doesn't tell us what concrete actions to do or what motivations to have. It only tells us not to combine an action (toward another) with a desire (about how we be treated in the same circumstances). This won't conflict with "Love your neighbor."
 * No, they're somewhat different in meaning. "Love your neighbor" tells us to have concern for others -- to seek to do good and not harm to them -- and to do this for their own sake. "Love your neighbor" specifies a motivation (while GR doesn't). GR, in turn, gives a workable way to operationalize the somewhat vague idea of "loving your neighbor." So the two ideas are more complementary than equivalent.

{The literal golden rule tells Ima Masochist, who wants X to torture him, to torture X. The book deals with the masochist problem by - seeing GR as only forbidding inconsistent action-desire combinations. - including some method to criticize irrational desires. - having Ima ask whether he's willing that he be tortured if he were in the exact place of X (who presumably is a nonmasochist). + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Since our GR only forbids inconsistencies, and doesn't tell what specific act to do, it doesn't tell Ima to torture another. But we need the other things too.
 * Ima would have to have a strong self-hatred to desire that he be tortured if he were in the place of a nonmasochist. We could counter Ima's self-hatred by getting him to understand himself better (including the source of his hatred), appreciate his self-worth, and experience positive ways of living. If he developed a love for himself, then GR could extend this love-of-self to love-of-others.
 * Ima will likely answer "no." Typical masochists desire physical or emotional pains because these bring sexual, athletic, or religious satisfactions. Ima wouldn't get these satisfactions if he were in the place of X (a nonmasochist). So to be tortured in X's place would bring unwanted pain. But we need the other things too.
 * Ima would need a strong self-hatred to desire that he be tortured if he were in the place of a nonmasochist (who wouldn't get masochistic satisfactions from the torture). This self-hatred could probably be rationally criticized. Even if it couldn't, GR wouldn't tell Ima to torture another (since GR only forbids inconsistencies, and doesn't tell what specific act to do).

{I do something to another. To test whether I satisfy our GR, I should ask: - "If I were in the same situation, would I then be willing that this be done to me?" - "Am I now willing that this be done to me (in my present situation)?" + "Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?" - All of these mean the same thing.
 * type=""}
 * This causes trouble when you punish your child. If you were a child, in your child's exact place, then you'd desire not to be punished. GR, understood this way, would forbid you to punish your child -- which is absurd. You can satisfy the correct GR form if you can say: "I'm now willing that if I were in my child's place then I be punished in this way." To avoid the bad form, be careful not to put "IF" before "WILLING" -- and not to say "WOULD be willing."
 * This question is wrong because it ignores differences in circumstances. You and the other person might be in very different situations. Maybe you have a bad appendix, and thus want the doctor to remove your appendix. Should you then remove the doctor's appendix?
 * This is the correct question to ask. If your answer is "no," then you're inconsistent and violate the golden rule. This question uses a same-situation clause and a present attitude toward a hypothetical situation. It asks how you NOW are willing that you'd be treated if you were in the other person's place.
 * You need to focus more clearly on the differences.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

{The golden rule theorem says: - Don't combine these two: (a) I do something to another, and (b) I'm unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation. - Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation. + both of the above - neither of the above
 * type=""}
 * This is one way of putting the theorem. But the other way is OK too.
 * This is one way of putting the theorem. But the other way is OK too.
 * The two formulations mean the same thing. The don't-combine formulation is more precise.
 * How could you miss the cute little boxes at the start of the chapter?

{Suppose that your present drinking will cause yourself a future hangover. When you imagine yourself experiencing the hangover now, you don't consent to the idea of your having treated yourself that way. Are you consistent? - Yes -- since you aren't violating the golden rule toward others. + No -- since you are treating yourselves (in the future) as you aren't willing to have been treated by yourselves (in the past).
 * type=""}
 * There are other consistency conditions besides the golden rule.
 * You violate an analogue of the golden rule called the "future-regard principle." With this, you imagine yourself, not in the place of another, but at a future moment of time in which you experience the consequences of your action. And you ask, "Do I now consent to the idea of my having treated myself this way in this situation?" Practical rationality requires that we take into account future consequences of our actions. More crudely: "Don't do what you'll later regret."

{Correct formulations of the golden rule involve - a don't-combine form. - a present attitude toward a hypothetical situation. - a same-situation clause. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * We need "don't-combine" instead of "if-then." But we need more besides this.
 * GR needs to refer to our present desire about how we be treated in a hypothetical case. But we need more besides this.
 * We need something like "in the same situation" or "in an exactly similar situation" or "in the reversed situation." But we need more besides this.
 * We need these features to avoid absurd implications and to insure that our GR is derivable from conscientiousness and impartiality.

{Suppose that you want to punish your child. Our GR would have you ask: + "Am I now willing that if I were in my child's place then I'd be punished?" - "If I were in my child's place, would I then be willing to be punished?" - Both questions mean the same thing.
 * type=""}
 * When you punish your child, you should be able to say "I'm now willing that if I were in my child's place then I be punished in this way" -- and thus satisfy GR. This gives your present adult desire about a hypothetical case. To use the correct form, be careful to say "WILLING THAT IF."
 * This question is about what your desires would be if you were a child. If you were a child, in your child's exact place, then you'd desire not to be punished. GR, formulated this way, would forbid you to punish your child -- which is absurd. To use the correct form, be careful to say "WILLING THAT IF."
 * There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

{The golden rule, understood properly, is    - a description of human behavior. - an infallible guide to what is right or wrong. + a consistency principle. - all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * People may or may not follow the golden rule in their lives.
 * The golden rule, properly understood, does not tell us what specific act to do. Formulations that try to do this lead to absurdities when applied to someone with defective desires (for example, someone who hates himself and wants to be tortured).
 * GR only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (about a reversed-situation action). Formulations that tell us what specific act to do lead to absurdities when applied to someone with defective desires (for example, someone who hates himself and wants to be tortured).
 * Just one holds.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

{In applying GR to someone who is senile, we should ask: - "If I were senile, would I then be willing to be treated in such and such ways?" + "Am I now willing that if I were senile then I'd be treated in such and such ways?" - Both questions mean the same thing.
 * type=""}
 * We'd have confused desires -- hardly a good basis for deciding what to do! To use the correct form, be careful to say "WILLING THAT IF."
 * This question is about what we now (in our current rational state) desire about how we'd be treated if we were less rational. This is about our present attitude toward a hypothetical or future situation. The other question is about what our desires would be if we were in a less rational state (if we were senile). To use the correct form, be careful to say "WILLING THAT IF."
 * One question is about what we now (in our current rational state) desire about how we'd be treated if we were less rational. The other question is about what our desires would be if we were in a less rational state (if we were senile). To use the correct form, be careful to say "WILLING THAT IF."

{The practical value of the golden rule is that - it counteracts self-centeredness. - it concretely applies ideals like fairness and impartiality. - it helps us to see the point behind moral rules. - it engages our reasoning, instead of imposing an answer. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * This, and more.
 * This, and more.
 * This, and more.
 * This, and more.
 * If you had to give a one sentence summary of what morality is about, you couldn't do better than the golden rule.

{One could follow GR but still act wrongly. + True - False
 * type=""}
 * A coal-mine owner might act wrongly in paying his workers only $1 a day. Because he's ignorant about how much things cost, he's willing that he be paid that much in their place. He satisfies GR but still acts wrongly. Here we need to correct the mine owner's view of the facts. Only then can GR show him his error in how much he pays his workers. GR is a consistency principle -- not a direct guide to action. It doesn't tell us which individual acts are right or wrong. It just tells us to be consistent. GR works best when combined with other factors, such as knowledge, imagination, and rationalized desires.
 * A coal-mine owner might act wrongly in paying his workers only $1 a day. Because he's ignorant about how much things cost, he's willing that he be paid that much in their place. He satisfies GR but still acts wrongly. Here we need to correct the mine owner's view of the facts. Only then can GR show him his error in how much he pays his workers. GR is a consistency principle -- not a direct guide to action. It doesn't tell us which individual acts are right or wrong. It just tells us to be consistent. GR works best when combined with other factors, such as knowledge, imagination, and rationalized desires.

{The golden rule can be derived from the requirements to  - be impartial and follow ends-means consistency. - be conscientious and follow ends-means consistency. + be conscientious and impartial. - none of the above -- the golden rule is a basic principle and can't be derived from other requirements.
 * type=""}
 * We need the conscientiousness requirement.
 * We need the impartiality requirement.
 * If we're conscientious and impartial, then we'll follow GR -- since then we won't do something to another unless we believe it would be all right -- and thus believe it would be all right to do to us in the same situation -- and thus are willing that it be done to us in the same situation.
 * Sorry, the golden rule can be derived from other consistency requirements.

{The golden rule is an invention of modern western culture. - True + False
 * type=""}
 * You are a million miles off!
 * The golden rule has wide support among the various religions and cultures of the world. Jesus Christ, Confucius, and the Rabbi Hillel all used the rule to summarize their teachings. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism also support GR, as do secular thinkers from diverse cultures. Many of these give the rule a central status in moral thinking. GR is close to being a global principle -- a norm common to all peoples of all times. The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard that different cultures could appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {Our GR ("We ought to treat others only as we consent to being treated in the same situation") is stronger than the GR of prescriptivism in that: - we can violate it even if we don't use "ought." - we can defend it using practically any approach to ethics. - views that accept moral truths could accept that our GR is an important moral truth about how we ought to live. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * Prescriptivism's GR is about the consistent use of "ought" -- and so we can escape prescriptivism's GR if we refuse to make moral judgments. But the other points hold too.
 * Prescriptivism's GR assumes a controversial prescriptivist analysis of moral terms. But the other points hold too.
 * Prescriptivism says that moral judgments aren't true or false -- and so it isn't a moral truth that we ought to follow the golden rule. But the other points hold too.
 * All of these hold.

{Suppose that you write a poor essay and your teacher gives you a low grade. You tell your teacher, "If you were in my place, you wouldn't want to be given a low grade; so, by the golden rule, you ought not to give me a low grade." What is wrong with this reasoning? - GR doesn't tell what specific act to do. Instead, it forbids an inconsistent action-desire combination. - GR is about your present attitude toward a hypothetical situation. + Both of the above are defects in the reasoning. - Nothing is wrong with this reasoning.
 * type=""}
 * This is one of the defects in the reasoning.
 * Your teacher should be able to say, "I'm willing that if I were in this situation then I be given a low grade" -- and thus satisfy GR. This is one of the defects in the reasoning.
 * Your teacher should be able to say, "I'm willing that if I were in this situation then I be given a low grade" -- and thus satisfy GR. GR won't force your teacher to give you good grades for poor work!
 * Sorry, but GR won't force your teacher to give you good grades for poor work!

{Our GR can tell a masochist who wants to be tortured to torture another. - True + False
 * type=""}
 * Our GR won't command torture, since it doesn't command specific actions. Instead, it forbids inconsistent combinations (treating another in a given way + not consenting to be treated that way in the same situation). Since our GR only forbids inconsistencies, it doesn't assume that our desires about how we are to be treated are perfectly fine or give us a flawless guide on how to treat others. The literal GR would tell the masochist to torture another. So the literal GR can command a person with defective desires to do evil things.
 * Our GR won't command torture, since it doesn't command specific actions. Instead, it forbids inconsistent combinations (treating another in a given way + not consenting to be treated that way in the same situation). Since our GR only forbids inconsistencies, it doesn't assume that our desires about how we are to be treated are perfectly fine or give us a flawless guide on how to treat others. The literal GR would tell the masochist to torture another. So the literal GR can command a person with defective desires to do evil things.

{What is the best match? Keep your means in harmony with your ends - Impartiality - Golden rule - Universal law + Ends-means consistency - Self-regard
 * type=""}
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation <=> Universal law
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard

{What is the best match? Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved - Ends-means consistency - Golden rule - Universal law + Impartiality - Self-regard
 * type=""}
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation <=> Universal law
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {What is the best match? Our GR (Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation  - Ends-means consistency - Impartiality - Universal law + Golden rule - Self-regard
 * type=""}
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation <=> Universal law
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard

{What is the best match? Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation - Ends-means consistency - Impartiality - Golden rule + Universal law - Self-regard
 * type=""}
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation <=> Universal law
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard

{What is the best match? Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation - Ends-means consistency - Impartiality - Golden rule + Self-regard
 * type=""}
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard

{What is the best match? Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person - Ends-means consistency - Impartiality - Golden rule + Universal law
 * type=""}
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved <=> Impartiality
 * Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation <=> Golden rule
 * Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person <=> Universal law

{What is the best match? Keep your actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with your moral beliefs - Self-regard - Universal law - Logicality - Ends-means consistency + Conscientiousness
 * type=""}
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard
 * Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person <=> Universal law
 * Avoid inconsistent beliefs <=> Logicality
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Keep your actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with your moral beliefs <=> Conscientiousness

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {What is the best match? Avoid inconsistent beliefs - Self-regard - Universal law - Conscientiousness - Ends-means consistency + Logicality
 * type=""}
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard
 * Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person <=> Universal law
 * Keep your actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with your moral beliefs <=> Conscientiousness
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Avoid inconsistent beliefs <=> Logicality

{What is the best match? Treat yourself (in the future) only as you're willing to have been treated by yourself (in the past) - Self-regard - Universal law - Conscientiousness - Ends-means consistency + Future-regard
 * type=""}
 * Treat yourself only as you're willing to have others treat themselves in the same situation <=> Self-regard
 * Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person <=> Universal law
 * Keep your actions, resolutions, and desires in harmony with your moral beliefs <=> Conscientiousness
 * Keep your means in harmony with your ends <=> Ends-means consistency
 * Treat yourself (in the future) only as you're willing to have been treated by yourself (in the past) <=> Future-regard

{What is your answer? The formula of universal law theorem says: - Follow the rules that would be most useful for society to adopt. + Act only as you're willing for anyone to act in the same situation -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person. - Perform an act of sort A (e.g., an act of lying) only if you want everyone to perform acts of sort A. - Act according to your conscience.
 * type=""}
 * This is rule utilitarianism.
 * The formula of universal law is a generalization of the golden rule. It also includes the self-regard and future-regard ideas. UL works more smoothly than GR if our action affects two or more people. Equivalently, UL says "Act only in ways that you find acceptable, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself in the situation."
 * This is the "What if everyone did that?" principle.
 * Not exactly.

{What is your answer? If you're conscientious and impartial, then: - You won't act to steal Detra's bicycle unless you believe that it would be all right for you to steal her bicycle. - You won't believe that it would be all right for you to steal her bicycle unless you believe that it would be all right for your bicycle to be stolen in the same situation. - You won't believe that it would be all right for your bicycle to be stolen in the same situation unless you're willing that your bicycle be stolen in the same situation. + all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * This step follows since you're conscientious. The other steps hold too.
 * This step follows since you're impartial. The other steps hold too.
 * This step follows since you're conscientious. The other steps hold too.
 * So if you're conscientious and impartial, then you won't act to steal Detra's bicycle unless you're willing that your bicycle be stolen in the same situation.

{What is your answer? To apply the golden rule adequately, we need - imagination. - knowledge. + both of the above. - none of the above -- the golden rule doesn't need anything else!
 * type=""}
 * We also need knowledge.
 * We also need imagination.
 * We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. When combined with knowledge and imagination, the golden rule is a powerful tool of moral thinking.
 * Sorry, we need knowledge and imagination.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections. {What is your answer? The formula of universal law says that we are to act only as we're willing for anyone to act in similar circumstances -- regardless of imagined variations of time or person. This formula includes the insights of    - the future-regard principle (where we ask whether we consent to this act being done when we imagine ourselves experiencing its future consequences). - the golden rule (where we ask whether we consent to others acting this way toward us). -the self-regard principle (where we ask whether we consent to others, especially those we care about, doing as we do). +all of the above.
 * type=""}
 * It includes the other insights as well.
 * It includes the other insights as well.
 * It includes the other insights as well.
 * It includes all three insights.

{What is your answer? Our GR is the same as "Treat others as they want to be treated" (the platinum rule). - True + False
 * type=""}
 * The platinum rule can prescribe evil actions. Suppose that Dr Evil wants me to help him to destroy the world; then platinum tells me to help Dr Evil to destroy the world. And platinum can prescribe self-contradictions. Suppose that the Democrat wants me to vote for her and not for the Republican-and the Republican wants me to vote for her and not for the Democrat; then platinum tells me to vote for both and for neither. GR sometimes permits us to act against the will of another -- as in the case of the two-year-old who doesn't want to be spanked when he tries to put his fingers in the electrical outlet.
 * The platinum rule can prescribe evil actions. Suppose that Dr Evil wants me to help him to destroy the world; then platinum tells me to help Dr Evil to destroy the world. And platinum can prescribe self-contradictions. Suppose that the Democrat wants me to vote for her and not for the Republican-and the Republican wants me to vote for her and not for the Democrat; then platinum tells me to vote for both and for neither. GR sometimes permits us to act against the will of another -- as in the case of the two-year-old who doesn't want to be spanked when he tries to put his fingers in the electrical outlet.

Please continue the course with the topic on Moral Reasoning.