[James C. Bennett]

IF, as a thought experiment, it benefitted society to do just the opposite of the golden rule, call it the iron rule, would the iron rule then have paramount value for you? Would it then be, for you personally, "good" to do unto others what you wouldn’t want done unto you?

Very simple to evaluate. Apply the Golden Rule, and also apply your proposed rule. See how they fare. Which one will have predictable detrimental effects? Try it out. Give me a scenario.

[D-fendr]

Apply the Golden Rule, and also apply your proposed rule. See how they fare. Which one will have predictable detrimental effects? Try it out. Give me a scenario.

Boy I'm just explaining well enough here.

I'm not trying to evaluate whether the golden rule is of greater benefit to society than it's opposite. I am trying to see if, in your view, it is a subordinate value. In other words, if it's opposite was of greater benefit to society (assumed for the sake of argument) would the opposite then be the paramount value?

Another way of saying this is the golden rule, for you, good all on its own, or only because it benefits society?

If the latter, then for you the golden rule is a dependent value - deriving its value completely from another: "to benefit society."