I would imagine the “why” of the rule is more important than the rule itself. Anyway, some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_...

Besides, the unqualified versions of The Golden Rule are subject to exploits around not observing the Veil of Ignorance.

After all, I believe that everyone whose name is “Rene” must by right have the money of all others. I do unto you as I would have you do unto me: I.e. we both behave according to the precept “if I am a Rene and you are not then I will take your money; and if you are Rene and I am not then I would give you my money”.

A universal law for the ages. I shall treat you as I would have you treat me. Now, if you don’t mind, stand and deliver.

What if I am very secure about given topic (e.g., balding), so I feel very comfortable joking about it, even "at my cost". Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

That depends on how much value you place on the liberty to make such jokes. Whether you personally disregard the potential feelings of other people is a choice left to you and only you. How other people do feel or are perceived to feel about a subject is not a basis for assigning a moral value.

It's context-dependent isn't it? The same joke can be harmless fun in one context, and a cruel jab in another, eh?

"Do unto others..." isn't a compressed file that expands into generic rules for every situation. (If life was simple enough to be covered by a set of generic rules we wouldn't have evolved these huge calorie-guzzling brains on the ends of our spines, eh?)

That's exactly my point. Understanding the dependent context can be considered the "advanced morality" the parent post asked about.

Ah, cheers!

'Do unto others' is a principle that can be applied into every situation.

You might think the situation is too broad or complex etc, but your calorie-guzzling brain can work the many and various context-dependent scenarios out. For every wrong there is a right answer. We live in a moral world.

Luckily, its not your job to sort the world out. You can only work on yourself and ensure your actions are aligned with morality.

PS I would reply sooner, but as I have received so many downvotes I get a message to slow down, that I am posting too fast.

No worries. FWIW I agree with you.

It depends on the kind of humor. Humor is a very powerful tool that may even dispell insecurities if done right, but it could also be very rub it in one’s face offensive.

If you think others are sensitive about a topic, does it seem right to you to make jokes at their expense?

And how do you know if they are sensitive? Are you going to ask them, or not? If not, why not? If yes, would it still be the golden rule? Or perhaps platinum rule - do unto others as -they- wish, not as -you-.

What I am trying to say is that the golden rule and its applicability is far from obvious. You can consider interpreting it correctly the most basic "advanced morality" you asked about.

You said:

> Should I disregard the fact other people might be insecure about it, because I don't mind people "doing unto me" such jokes?

You seemed to show awareness that people might be insecure - so you have the information you need to exercise your judgement in this case. And every case will be resolvable if you want, via the application of reason. But this is a free will universe - you can ignore the information that you have, but then, you also know what that means.

If you want to say whatever-it-is isn't obvious, that's fine. You don't have to follow what I say. In truth, what I (or the golden rule say) isn't important - words are pliable if you want them to be and work at it. You already know what is right and wrong, what intent your actions have behind them - the words are merely decorative; an attempt to communicate.

My view is that we judge ourselves. If you think you can kid yourself and via word games so you can have you cake and eat it, go ahead - but you have been told. There is a difference between nascence and ignorance - ignorance is a choice. All the best.

Consider how you would like others to treat your insecurities. Balding isn't the core issue here...

I upvoted this, because the brilliance of this is its simplicity. A society that has convinced itself that the Golden Rule is bad is a society that has lost something of immense value.

The so-called Platinum Rule is presented as a better alternative to the Golden Rule, but it should be viewed as (and relegated to) something more like "fine print". There's an important reason for this:

The Golden Rule actually promotes empathy. It gives you a simple tool for understanding situations: Put yourself in the other person's shoes and ask what you'd want. This is something that you, and others, are likely to be somewhat capable of.

The Platinum Rule, by contrast, discourages empathy (under the guise of the reverse), by telling you to emphasize difference between yourself and the other person, and making them more unknowable, more Other. It also, in practice, tends to promote suspicion, fear-of-offense, and, as a result, inaction: "I would like it if someone did this for me. But maybe they wouldn't? Maybe they'll be mad for some reason? I hear those people have strange beliefs and fiery tempers. Ok, I'll just mind my own business."

Fine, yes, in extreme border cases, it's worth pausing and considering "platinum rule"-like considerations. But even there I contend that you're better off using the Golden Rule's mantra, and putting yourself in the other's shoes; then all the second-order effects can be included in those "shoes".

In short, from an emotional perspective, the Golden Rule simply works better.

Instead the situation can be a bit like --

You're trying to build a bridge. And you have this good way to do it, using Newtonian mechanics.

And then somebody comes along and goes, "but achktually, 'General Relativity', you idiot; who let you near bridges?" Not that they themselves could possibly calculate the loads using a full General-Relativistic treatment. And then, everybody gives up: The bridge stays unbuilt, and warring camps form on opposite sides of the river.

This gets at another problem with the "Platinum Rule": It is, fairly explicitly, a way for a person to say, "your consensus about how to be good is wrong; I am better". In this way it's an elitist idea: "I'm so smart; my ethics are superior to the rubes'". The Golden Rule, by contrast, is leveling.

Life comes at you fast. You need good simple mental tools -- mantras -- that help you to cultivate the correct emotional states. When you catch fire, you don't have time to calculate stoichiometry; you "Stop, Drop, and Roll".

The Golden Rule is like that for ethics. It's one of the very few things that actually works.