Golden Rule
Enable an agent to recognize formulations of the Golden Rule, evaluate their use in interpersonal decisions, and identify when role reversal requires clarification or additional ethical constraints.
Research draft, second pass
A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.
recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read
Researched by: Codex
Purpose and description
Enable an agent to recognize formulations of the Golden Rule, evaluate their use in interpersonal decisions, and identify when role reversal requires clarification or additional ethical constraints.
The Golden Rule is an ethical principle that asks people to treat others as they would wish to be treated in comparable circumstances, or to refrain from treatment they would not wish to receive.
It can be Classify a candidate formulation and distinguish ethical role reversal from unrelated uses of the name.; Construct an explicit actor-recipient reversal for a proposed action or omission.; Compare judgments produced by positive, negative, and preference-sensitive interpretations.; Identify missing recipient information and formulate questions that avoid assuming shared preferences.; Detect conflicts with consent, rights, duties, or effects on third parties and route the decision for additional assessment.; Explain an application through its formulation, assumptions, role mapping, and unresolved limitations..
Distinguishing features
A formulation connects treatment of another person to treatment the actor would accept or reject under some reversal of roles.
Its ethical demand need not depend on the other person returning a favor, distinguishing it from conditional exchange.
It uses an interpersonal comparison rather than merely asking whether an action produces the largest aggregate benefit.
It does not automatically mean treating everyone identically; the interpretation must specify how differences in circumstances affect role reversal.
A requirement to follow the recipient's preferences alone is distinguishable from the Golden Rule unless an explicit role-reversal argument connects them.
Scope
+ Positive formulations directing treatment one would welcome and negative formulations forbidding treatment one would reject
+ Role reversal between an acting person and an affected person
+ Interpretations of whose preferences, circumstances, and interests govern the comparison
+ Application to proposed actions, omissions, and interpersonal policies
+ Limits arising from different preferences, unequal power, consent, and conflicting obligations
- Reciprocity as conditional exchange, repayment, or retaliation
- Complete ethical theories and general accounts of moral obligation
- Religious traditions and philosophical systems in their entirety
- Empathy as a psychological capacity independently of ethical judgment
- Legal rights, professional duties, and consent frameworks as independently defined systems
- Unrelated technical principles also called a golden rule
Characteristics
- Formulation polarity
- Positive injunction; negative prohibition; combined; unclear Seeking welcome treatment and avoiding unwelcome treatment can impose different demands.
- Normative force
- Duty; prohibition; recommendation; deliberative heuristic; unspecified Determines whether a formulation claims to settle a decision or merely guide reflection.
- Preference reference
- Actor's actual preferences; actor's informed preferences; recipient's preferences under role reversal; specified idealized preferences; unspecified Different reference points can produce opposing judgments about the same treatment.
- Role-reversal mapping
- Mapping between actor and recipient roles, with circumstances held fixed or exchanged Makes the imagined comparison explicit and exposes misleading substitutions.
- Covered recipients
- All persons; specified community; specified relationship; other explicitly stated scope; unspecified Reveals exclusions and prevents an agent from assuming a scope the formulation does not state.
- Dependence on reciprocation
- Unconditional; conditional on expected response; ambiguous Helps distinguish a Golden Rule argument from bargaining or reciprocal reward.
- Application assessment
- Unassessed; supported under stated assumptions; rejected under stated assumptions; indeterminate; requires additional ethical assessment Separates the outcome of a particular interpretation from a claim that an action is ethically justified overall.
Also called
Where this came from
wikidata · CC0 1.0
Drafted structure
Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 5 bundles · 9 layers · 15 findings · 24 questions.
Formulation and identity Establishes which ethical formulation is being modeled and why it counts as an instance of the Golden Rule.
The label alone cannot distinguish variations of the ethical principle from exchange rules or unrelated technical uses.
Ethical formulation
Captures the wording and direction of the treatment requirement.
Positive and negative demands
Record whether the formulation directs welcome treatment, prohibits unwelcome treatment, or combines both without assuming these demands are equivalent.
- Does this formulation require providing treatment one would welcome, avoiding treatment one would reject, or both? definition
- Would an omission pass its negative test while failing its positive test? boundary
Attribution and equivalence
Separates a formulation's documented wording from later paraphrases and interpretations.
Traceable rule variant
Treat an attributed quotation, translation, paraphrase, and operational interpretation as distinguishable representations whose equivalence needs support.
- What source supports the wording and attribution of this particular formulation? provenance
- Does a paraphrase change the recipients, conditions, or force of the original treatment requirement? boundary
Role reversal and preferences Makes explicit how an actor imagines receiving the proposed treatment.
A Golden Rule judgment depends on what changes during role reversal and whose preferences are considered.
Interpersonal role mapping
Identifies the actor, recipient, treatment, and circumstances used in the comparison.
Specified reversal
Describe the imagined exchange of positions, including whether knowledge, vulnerability, authority, and practical constraints transfer with the recipient's role.
- Who acts, who receives the treatment, and what exactly is exchanged in the imagined reversal? definition
- Which differences in power, knowledge, or vulnerability must the actor retain or adopt for the comparison to be meaningful? boundary
Preference interpretation
Distinguishes projection of the actor's tastes from interpretations responsive to the recipient's situation.
Preference divergence
Record relevant disagreements in preferences and identify how the chosen interpretation handles them rather than assuming that welcome treatment is universal.
- Does the test use what the actor currently wants or what the actor would want with the recipient's circumstances and preferences? definition
- What should the agent ask the recipient before using its own or the actor's preferences to judge the treatment? action
Practical application Connects a stated Golden Rule interpretation to concrete choices and explainable judgments.
Recognizing the maxim is insufficient unless an agent can show what treatment it evaluates and how the comparison bears on a decision.
Treatment comparison
Applies the formulation to an action, omission, or repeated practice at an explicit level of specificity.
Comparable treatment
Specify the treatment being compared, including relevant conditions, so that a general description does not conceal coercion, exclusion, or unwanted assistance.
- What action or omission is proposed, and what would receiving that treatment involve under the specified role reversal? definition
- Would changing the description from an abstract intention to the concrete treatment change the actor's acceptance? boundary
Judgment and explanation
Records what the comparison supports and which assumptions the conclusion requires.
Conditional application result
Keep acceptance or rejection under the selected formulation distinct from overall ethical permission, and preserve uncertainty when relevant information is missing.
- Under the stated formulation and role mapping, what reason supports accepting or rejecting the proposed treatment? action
- Which missing facts or disputed assumptions require the result to remain indeterminate? boundary
Ethical boundaries and conflicts Identifies where interpersonal role reversal requires other ethical considerations or is confused with a different rule.
An actor's willingness to receive treatment cannot by itself settle consent, competing obligations, or effects on everyone involved.
Consent and obligations
Examines conflicts between the actor's reversed-role acceptance and constraints governing the actual action.
Acceptance is not authorization
Check separately whether the recipient consents and whether rights or role-specific duties constrain treatment the actor would personally accept.
- Could the actor welcome this treatment while the recipient refuses it or lacks a meaningful opportunity to consent? boundary
- Which independent rights, duties, or consent requirements must be assessed before acting on the comparison? action
Reciprocation and multiple recipients
Tests whether the argument depends on repayment and whether a two-person comparison overlooks others.
Reciprocation condition
Distinguish using one's imagined treatment as an ethical test from acting only to secure equivalent treatment in return.
- Would the stated reason still require the treatment if the recipient could never return a benefit? boundary
- Is expected reciprocation part of the rule itself or merely a hoped-for consequence of following it? definition
Conflicting recipient claims
Identify affected people outside the immediate role pair and expose cases where separate reversals support incompatible actions.
- Which other people are affected, and does reversal into their positions support a conflicting judgment? boundary
- What additional decision principle or human judgment is needed when the role-reversal comparisons cannot all be satisfied? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- The name is interpreted here as the ethical principle; no recorded sense confirms this interpretation.
- Positive and negative formulations are widely distinguished, but their equivalence and practical implications are debated.
- Historical priority, exact textual wording, and claims of universality require verification; this account is based on recall.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Positive formulation: treat others as you would wish to be treated
- Negative formulation: do not treat others in ways you would not wish to be treated
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Teaching interpersonal ethics and consideration for others
- Encouraging perspective-taking in conflict resolution
- Framing shared ethical commitments in interfaith dialogue
- Guiding everyday decisions about fair and considerate conduct
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Projecting one's own preferences onto people with different needs or wishes
- Ignoring differences in circumstances, vulnerability, or power
- Using personal willingness to suffer harm as justification for harming others
- Providing insufficient guidance when duties or affected parties' interests conflict
- Mistaking the principle for conditional exchange or retaliation
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Christian traditions commonly associate it with positive formulations in the teachings of Jesus.
- Confucian traditions associate a negative formulation with reciprocity, often discussed through the concept of shu.
- Jewish tradition includes a negative formulation associated with Hillel; wording and interpretation differ across religious and philosophical traditions.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Reciprocity - Reciprocity can mean responding to another person's actual conduct; the Golden Rule need not depend on how the other person has behaved.
- Kant's categorical imperative - The categorical imperative tests principles of action through requirements such as universalizability, rather than asking whether the agent would welcome the same treatment.
- Platinum Rule - The Platinum Rule explicitly prioritizes how others wish to be treated, whereas the familiar Golden Rule wording begins with the agent's own imagined wishes.
- Empathy - Empathy is a capacity to understand or share another's experience; the Golden Rule is a principle for conduct.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Golden Rule this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
What the second pass must settle
- Which documented formulations and translations should anchor this registry entry, and what differences should remain explicit rather than being normalized away?
- Should positive and negative formulations be modeled as variants of one principle or as distinct interpretations with different obligations?
- Which preference interpretation should an agent use when a formulation does not specify how to account for the recipient's differing wants and circumstances?
- How far should recipient scope extend beyond individual persons, and what sources support any proposed extension?
- What decision procedure should govern conflicts between a Golden Rule comparison, recipient consent, role-specific duties, and claims of third parties?