"Du unto others..." -- The Words of Christ
Assertion -- "Do unto others as you woul dhave them do unto you" is a good philosophy, but a flawed one.
Example -- I would have others call me very often on the telephone, because I enjoy telephone calls. (Note that "often" in this sense refers to what most people would find to be excessive.)
Furthermore -- One may not want excessive phone calls, but they may receive them becasue the caller is acting under the "do unto others" principle.
Conclusion -- The principle is flawed because what onewants may not be what another wants; what one wants may, in fact, be aggravating, annoying, painful, or something else negative, to another person.
"I would want Phil to give me cookies because I like them; I would have him do that unto me. Phil, though, is allergic to cookies, and he would not have me give him cookies."
The idea of the flaw is that what is good for one person is not necessarily good for another.
I believe that Christ is God made into flesh, and that, as God, He is perfect, holy, righteous, and just. To refute one of His principles is to refute His nature - God. To say that this idea is not right is to say that God is wrong, in my view, and THAT is wrong.
Counter Refutation
Let us look at the example with the phone calls.
1. "I call others frequently, because I wish they would do so for me; I would have them do so."
2. "But I would not have you call me often, even though you would."
Now, the phone call example appears solid, but let us more closely examine the basis of the principle.
The principle is straightforward: don't do something to someone unless you wouldn't mind them doing it to you. But is the phone call example reading too much into this principle? Could it not be said that what "I" really want is for others to answer my reasonable expectations? Could it not be said that the phone call is, in fact, not even the issue, but, rather, the issue is that I would have others respect my wishes, as long as they were reasonable? I would have others call me frequently on the phone if it is what they would have me do, AND if it is what I would have them do. If I would have them call me, but they would not have me call them, then, after finding this out, I would no longer have them call me (keeping in mind the "excessive" stipulation mentioned earlier) because doing so would be disrespectful of their reasonable desire, and, above all else, I WOULD have them respect my reasonable desire.
Would I give others video games in the expectation that they would do so for me? Only if that is what they desire. If they would rather I give them clothes, then so be it, because the idea isn't what tangibly is or isn't being given; the idea is what it is: I would have others do to me what I would do to them; I would do good to them because I would have them do good to me. I would respec tthem because I would have them respect me. What is being "done" is, essentially, inconsequential. This principle is very simple: love. We could sit here all day and insert millions of stipulations ito the proverbial blank, but at the end of it all, it comes down to doing what you would have done: most people would have a general sense of love, generosity, and respect DONE, and that is the point of the entire idea.
-I would have others do what I ask of them, as long as it was reasonable.
-I would have others respect me.
-I would have others be generous to me.
-I would have others love me.
-I would have others treat me as Christ would have.
What is love? Paul writes eloquently:
1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (NIV)
Love is patient, lovei s kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveares. Love never fails.
To finish, think, speculatively, of what would hapen if someone, for example, asked you to call them all the time and you refused, for whatever reason. What would the other person's reaction be? Let us assume the person to be vindictive. Would the person not say something along the lines of: "Well, if you won't call me, which is what I want you to do, then I won't bring you cookies, since that is what you want me to do."
Although not the only possible answer, it is a likely, and, by me, experienced outcome, which further exemplifies that the "do unto others" principle is, even by those who do not quote unqoute "understand" it, understood.