When you first meet someone this rule should be applied. However, if the person is clearly not going to be nice to you then I believe you have the right to be the same way back because that is obviously how they would like to be treated.

 People should be treated based on their speech, actions and general manner, not how 'you'd like to be treated yourself'. Yes, if the everyone in the world did treat everyone how they'd like to be treated the world would be a better place, but, of course they don't.

I'm not sure it brings rewards anyway. Most of the richest, famous, and most rewarded people definitely didn't treat others as they'd like to be treated themselves on the way up. I'm not saying treat people bad, you should treat people as you'd like to be treated, but I'm just disagreeing with your statement. Its just another of those do gooder terms for people who think they are making the world a better place, but really have no idea.

 In teaching empathy and other corporate "soft skills" I've come across a convincing essay by Milton J. Bennett, which advocates a Platinum Rule: "Do unto others as they themselves would have done unto them." On reflection, I choose to agree with this premise.

I used to think the Golden Rule was applicable everywhere on earth, but as I move around I see its application as presumptuous. What if others don't want to be treated like ourselves?

Voting "no" here so we can have a dialogue. This is a great debate topic!

 Known as the "Golden Rule" "Do as you would be done by" I disagree with what you say about rewards though. Acting in this way doesn't necessarily bring rewards, but it is a good way to treat others.

 I'm against it... As mush as i am for it ... I don't expect nothing in return. You should treat everyone the same...not for you own. But to make another persons day.

 Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is idealistic and simplistic. The following definition of cultural relativity was taken from this website:www.sociology.org.uk

"Cultural relativity is an attempt to understand the cultural development of societies and social groups own their own terms; that is, without trying to impose absolute ideas of moral value or trying to measure different cultural variations in terms of some form of absolute cultural standard.

In this sense, under specific circumstances, any form of human behaviour can appear to be good or bad. A good example here is our attitude to the killing of another human being.

In peace time this may be considered to be murder or manslaughter (deviant), whereas in war time this may be considered a duty.

As this example suggests, what is significant is not the act itself (taking the life of another person) but the social context of the act (in this instance, the moral background against which the act is viewed).

However, the concept of cultural relativity does present problems, since if we apply it politically, not just sociologically, we have to accept any form of behaviour as acceptable as long as it conforms to the cultural expectations of the society in which it takes place."

Right and wrong are both relative to context. You opinion of each are consequentially subjective, at least potentially.

 So if i wanted to be treated nicely i should treat murderers and rapists nicely?

 I love the golden rule, but just because you're nice to someone doesn't mean they'll be nice back. I wish it did! But some people just don't care if you're nice to them. Although, I'm still surprised how many people are on the Against side!

 You know what I think?Treat people with what they are and not with how I wish to be treated