While this "golden rule" is easy to understand, I find it also runs the risk of being oversimplified or misapplied. Too often, we interpret it simply as "don't do things that make others unhappy," ignoring the diversity of personal preferences, cultural backgrounds, and practical needs. I have been in the division of projects, because I hate "being rushed", I think others also hate "rushing", resulting in the delay of the task, and ultimately everyone. It can be seen that "what you don't want" is not necessarily equivalent to the real needs of the other party. Making the Golden Rule work requires more active communication and empathy, rather than simply applying our own standards to others.

I have always been interested in deontology, but at the same time have reservations about the idea that all moral obligations can be reduced to some universal, 'objective' rule. In real life, things are often not that simple: sometimes adhering to the principle of "never lie" can conflict with the need to express sympathy or assistance to the vulnerable. Coupled with differences in cultures and value systems, so-called "absolute" moral rules may not be applicable in other contexts. So, while such a theory can provide a coherent and stable moral benchmark, treating it as a one-size-fits-all standard inevitably ignores the complexities of specific situations and relationships. I think the deontology itself deserves in-depth discussion, is how to respect the basic principles at the same time, while taking into account the actual human feelings and social diversity.