The Ethicist: Does the Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society?

The Golden Rule (usually defined as "One should treat others as one would like to be treated") is attractive to people as a guiding principle for ethical conduct. However I feel that in our diverse, modern world, it is less than ideal. By assuming other people should be treated the way I want to be treated, it imposes my preferences and values on those around me. Wouldn't a better rule be "One should treat others as they want to be treated"? GARRETT FRY, MONROVIA, CALIF.

You're not the first person to question the logic of this principle. It's a reasonable reaction to any axiom that's supposed to work for all people, in all situations, all the time. The problem, however, has little to do with diversity or modernity; the problem is with the core supposition that any two people (regardless of similarity) will want the same thing. Your proposed solution seems better on the surface, but it has a different glitch — it hinges on the necessity of knowing (or asking) exactly what someone else desires, which defeats the utility of the concept. The espoused strength of the Golden Rule is that you shouldn't need to confer with anyone else before you act, because you would be automatically placing yourself in the boots of others.

The Golden Rule is imperfect and, at times, too easy of a response, so I almost never directly reference it in this column. Beyond the most fundamental level, I don't believe people want the same things. But there's another way to consider the language of this sentiment that makes the Golden Rule self-corrective: The rule states that people should treat others the way they would want to be treated. So how do we want to be treated? Well, I certainly want to be treated in a manner that accounts for the possibility that other people can't predict what I want. I want to be treated in a manner that does not assume all people are the same, and I never want anyone else to automatically impose their preferences upon my life (even if they believe their personal preferences are morally sound). These policies are central to how I want to be treated by others. And if this is the way I wish to be treated, it should be — according to the Golden Rule — how I treat everyone else. I should factor in my inability to read minds.

This semantic loophole makes the Golden Rule virtually bulletproof, which is why it's such a durable platitude. The downside, of course, is that the application of this loophole totally derails the sentiment's practicality. It provides a solution only if you can directly ask the other person precisely how they want to be treated — and if that option is available, you don't really need an overriding axiom to guide your behavior. This is why the Golden Rule is ultimately like every other maxim: It works flawlessly, until it doesn't. Then it just becomes a collection of words that sound vaguely profound.

HOME INVASION

Recently, my home was featured in a full-page advertisement in a national magazine. The advertiser is a manufacturer of a building product that we installed in the house, and our house is the only one featured in the ad. I did not know that my home would be in the advertisement until my contractor told me to look for it. I was not paid any money. Should I have been compensated? NAME WITHHELD

Absolutely. Your private residence is being used to promote a product that (I assume) you paid for, based on the assumption that you'll robotically be flattered to see your house in a magazine. Moreover, you weren't even asked for permission. That's insane. The company acted unethically.

E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.