Try to look at the question in details logically not from rote.?

Question

Doesn't "Do as you will, but do no harm" represent free-will and compassion better than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

Doesn't the second imply quid pro quo where the first does not limit compassion?

On thinking about many of the answers, they appear all to be weighted toward negating negative actions. The act of Compassion is not negative and that is why I chose it as well as free-will as qualifiers.

Answer 1

I assure you I am looking at the question logically and also by rote. I learned the second dictum before its refashioning as "Do as you will, but do no harm." It is logically the same for who truly desires to harm themselves? This is also said again with the dictum of Christ, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Same principle applies. However, each of those are deficient. We cannot think to be the standard as to what is harmful and unharmful to people. That is why each is guided by a higher one which is, "Love one another as I have loved you." Note that the Lord (who said I have loved you) has set the standard to this commandment and not us. So, all in all each is representative of freewill and compassion equally, yet it is because the Lord who is free and compassionate who standardize and promulgates them. As St. John the Evangelist states, "It is not because we have loved Him, but because He loved us first."
May the Lord bless and keep you. May He let the light of His face shine upon you.

God's and your beast of burden
Fr. john

Answer 2

I perceive them as pretty much the same thing... because you can't just do whatever you want when your whole approach is altruistic or at least refraining from doing no harm. The quote, "do unto others..." falls a bit short in my opinion because it's egocentric... if your whole view is the world from your perspective and how you'd want the world to treat YOU, then you fail to care for another sentient being in a way that would really make THEM happy. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for them. I prefer the simple word "altruism" or "selflessness", but that's me...

_()_

Answer 3

No. The problem with the Rede as it is commonly quoted is that it denies the ability to enforce justice. I harm a man to remove his freedom, but if he is running around killing people, I must remove his freedoms and isolate him from scoeity -- this is a grevious harm, but less than the harm he is causing.

Some modern editions of the Rede allow for 'but if harm must be done, do as little as needed'.

Just better to stick to the Golden Rule in my book, though I prefer the Buddhist version (Do not do to other what, in the same circumstances, would be unpleasant to you) or the Satanic version (Do unto others as they have done unto you).

Answer 4

Either statement all by itself is rather sketchy in providing guidance. All sorts of perversion would be allowed by either. In a way your suggestion might be a bit clearer,- especially if you were allowed to define "Harm" elsewhere.

Answer 5

They seem roughly equivalent, and if everybody would just grab ahold of one of them and really live that way, the world would be a much better place.

Answer 6

In just the same way that "Ruff! Ruff! Ruff!" is more sacred and holy than "Woof! Woof! Woof!" No offense to dogs everywhere. Just be still, puppy, and know.

Answer 7

No, because the first would be motivated by selfishness and the second would be motivated by selflessness.

Answer 8

Appears to be the same to me.

Answer 9

The catch is what you want. If you want heaven, you will do the first part, if not...welll...good bye