LB,
Your Platinum Rule put the onus of how to act upon the recipient; it is his way of wanting to be treated that is dominent. Instead of a masochist, think sadist.
The "Do not. . ." is important. It restricts my actions, thereby granting you more liberty. There is nothing there that should be interpreted as a requirement to fulfill, only to restrain from doing. Yes, religious zealots will say that gives license for anything not proscribed, but religious zealots always find an excuse.
Our Bill of Rights and Constitution are similarly documents of "negative liberty", restricting the Federal government. For the same reason: it maximizes the liberty of the states and individuals if the Feds are restrained. Well, they used to be, anyway.
You are right that the Golden Rule seems to have a defect; eg. the mascochist. But much of that defect comes from it being seen in a non-religious context. The Rule presupposes the follower is a practictioner of the Judeo-Christian religion. It was given in the Sermon on the Mount to the Disciples, not the multitudes. The words were not directed to the secular world.
For believers, the 10 commandments are mostly a list of negatives (thou shalt nots). And there are also the statutes and ordinances that Moses gave. The practictioner is therefore restrained, theoretically, from commiting a host of evils if he applies the "Do unto. . ." language.
Although, since a masochist sees pleasure in pain, he might not view any of the above as relevant.
This doesn't invalidate your point that most people operate under the Golden Rule as popularly understood. And as such, it fits well in your triad of Rules.
I'm sure an improved phrasing of the Platinum is possible, but I'm equally sure it will require a "Do not. . ." formulation.
Ken
The more you learn, the less you know--I don't want to know anything.
