Something I saw the other day, but failed to note the link for, brought home to me that this rule is a bit more complicated than it looks:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Up to now I've viewed it, unthinkingly, as a sound enough precept. But once you reflect on it, you come to see that it needs qualifying in a number of ways. First of all, the main weight of it should surely be negative: don't do unto others what you'd prefer them not to do unto you. Even there, it doesn't hold absolutely. For example, I prefer not to have fragrant oily substances added to my bath; plain water is what I like. But the women in my family are keen on just such fragrant oily substances being added to their baths. So why shouldn't I oblige? Not that my help is needed in that department, but you see what I'm saying. If we now return to the positive form of the principle, the do rather than the don't, it's not at all obvious that you can, let alone should, do something unto some particular other that you would have them do unto you. For exactly the same kind of reason as before. They may not have the same likes and dislikes as you do. You may need their permission. The golden rule needs to be reformulated.
Just thought I'd share that with you.