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...