There is a frequently asked philosophical question about our ability to grasp and to predict the thoughts and feelings of other people, an ability that is these days sometimes given the unfortunate name of ‘mentalising’ or ‘mind-reading’–I say ‘unfortunate’ because it makes appear mysterious what is not mysterious. Some philosophers and psychologists argue that this ability is grounded in possession of some kind of theory or body of knowledge about how minds work. Others argue that it is grounded in our (...) capacity to take on in imagination the perspective of others; sometimes called simulating or centrally imagining another person, we entertain in our minds what the other person is thinking about and feeling: if he is thinking ‘p’ and ‘if p then q’, then we think ‘p’ and ‘if p then q’, and if he is feeling angry with someone, then we imagine feeling angry with that person. We thus recreate as well as we can in our imagination his mental life as it is ‘from the inside’. We can do this in two different ways: I can put myself in the other's shoes, simply imagining what I would do were I in his situation, or I can empathise with him, imagining being him, taking on in imagination his relevant traits and other mental dispositions; I will from now on use the term perspective-shifting to cover both of these imaginative activities. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between the so-called golden rule and the so-called platinum rule. According to the golden rule (GR) you ought to treat others as you want to be treated by them; and according to the platinum rule (PR), you ought to treat others as they want to be treated by you. In this essay I argue for the following propositions. (1) (GR) and (PR) are logically independent. (2) (PR) can be derived from (...) (GR) given that you want to be treated by others as they want to be treated by you. (3) (GR) is derivable from (PR) given that others want to be treated by you as you want to be treated by them. And (4) (GR) and (PR) are equivalent given that you want to be treated by others as they want to be treated by you, and others want to be treated by you as you want to be treated by them. I consider some possible interpretations of (GR) and (PR), and I also address the question of whether (GR) is more plausible than (PR) or vice versa, or whether they are complementary. I discuss one argument for the view that (PR) is better than (GR) and mention several arguments for the view that (GR) is better than (PR). The discussion suggests that (GR) and (PR) are complementary. (shrink)

Should you always do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Brad Hooker investigates a seemingly plausible-looking moral principle: the Golden Rule.