There is a clear difference between ethics and law. While ethics is based on 'ought', law uses 'is'. In ethics, we are told what we ought to do and ought not to do but in law, we are told what we must do or must not do.
If you do certain things, law will judge you based on that thing because it is written that if you do it, certain punishment would be meted on you.
Ethics on the other hand, is a guide to what is right or wrong. It tells us what we ought to do (good) and what we ought not to do (bad).
One of the laws that is popularly known and referenced in the world is the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule has its backings from religion.
The commonly known Golden Rule is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This can be found in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6: 31
Another interpretation of the rule is 'treat others the way you want to be treated'.
This rule was made to practically support the 'love your neighbour as yourself,' implying that whatever you wish or want for yourself should be what you want for other people.
As philosophers, we looked at the rule and asked if doing that which we would want done unto us make the rule superior or without fault? That is, if doing unto others that which i would want done unto me means i am obeying the rule, what if that which i truly desired and wanted is harm, injury or disaster?
Don't forget, the rule does not say we should do good or positive things unto others as we would want them done unto us or do not do bad or evil unto others as we would not want them done unto us. It only says: do unto others what you would want them done unto you. So if we follow this rule closely, we might actually be harming or killing one another since it is what we want done unto us.
Now, it will be wrong to assume that 'do' was used and as such it is expect we do positive things. This would be a wrong step to take on the basis that human beings have choices to make. We choose whether to do good or bad and as such we might choose bad over good.
If i am someone who enjoys pain, then it means i would be obeying the law if i inflict pain on another person because pain is that which i would want others done to me.
The rule is not totally golden because it does not address the clause. If i would want someone to backbite me, then i can easily do it unto another person. If i would want someone to cheat on me, then i can easily cheat on others. In any case, i am simply obeying the Golden Rule.
What we like and things we can take differs and if i do unto you things i like and can take, then i would be obeying the Golden Rule but to you, i have offended you or did something unethical.
Do you think my 'clause' opens the Rule to a problem or we should just 'assume' it meant the 'good'? Now, if the 'good' is only good to me and not you and i did it, will i not be obeying the Rule?