The previous two comments are very thought-provoking and I can see the wisdom in not assuming that what would please you would please others. However, our world doesn't seem to suffer much from people genuinely intending to be kind and doing so mistakenly. Harm of the kind described - the corporal punishment, the values differences of liberals and conservatives - comes out of forcing someone else to live by your rules. Yet those people would not want that done to them at all. In other words, the doing has to come from the heart (would you feel good if this was done to you?) vs. the head (this is good for you whether you like it or not.) I don't think people administer corporal punishment because they would want people to do that to them. They think it "should" be done to someone else. I think either Hillel's or Jesus's statement work and both have dangers. Hillel's can be seen as compassionate respect (as described by the first two comments) or as isolative - leaving others alone, not hurting them, but not engaging either. Jesus' can be seen as interfering or actively compassionate - imposing your own values in the lives of others or reaching out toward others to actively make them happy. If forced to choose, I would probably prefer the more pro-active approach of Jesus. Fortunately, I can take advantage of the best of both points of view without choosing!
More information about text formats