Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, might be problematic as a universal moral imperative. If taken literally and subjectively, which I think they should if the rule is to have its full effect,* then with a liberal interpretation of language, the imperative might conflict with Law.

For example, if I, personally, were a rapist or sadistic murderer--remember, I am approaching this from the deep perspective of my present self, not that hypothetical, I, who is the rapist--I would want someone to kill me. Even if not because I am virtuous, but to put me out of my misery. So should I kill rapists and murderers, put them out of their misery?

Or, again, it is the perspective of my present self, if I was absurdly wealthy, I'd want people, even strangers to take my money, if not to be compassionate, then to help ease the dissonance I'd feel from the absurdity. I have enough wealth say to pass on for generations of comfort. So does that mean I should take the money of a ridiculously wealthy billionaire, help ease the dissonance from the absurdity of it?


* why not metaphorically is probably obvious. Why not objectively is because (Although the real historical first speaker is lost to us) it seems the "intent" of the rule is to have us act like a human, and take a step and dig deep into our own needs and fears when we are faced with a moral dilemma.