What becomes of a person that abides by those positive principles of human interaction, that have been touched upon by Buddha, Jesus and even Nietzsche? Will they ever find happiness?

Dostoevsky presumed that following such a path in the western world would drive one into a catatonic state. Camus implied that the end result of such principles would lead to the absurd. J.D. Salinger expressed that one of such a position would end up losing their sanity (ie. The Catcher in the Rye).

All of Salinger's works expose spiritual conflicts that are inevitable when one joins the modern society. Regarding The Catcher in the Rye, Salinger expresses the notion that the golden rule is obsolete. Holden Caulfield's main frustration was that every person he encountered was phony, a fake, a lie unto themselves.

If someone won't be honest to themselves then they can't follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." One who is false to themselves would rationalize that under certain circumstances it could be supposed that they would prefer to be treated harshly, and even if they wouldn't prefer a harsh treatment immediately, one day the receiver of such punishment would think back and appreciate the "lesson."

This insincerity is a problem that plagues all humanity, not just the upperclass of upper Manhattan. How can one follow the golden rule in this age of social overload? How could we possibly have the time and mental energy available to analyze and interpret other people's positions to decide how we would like to be treated given the other's situation?

Instead we rely upon short cuts, reducing the effort needed to truly follow the golden rule by using the guidelines of justice and protocol. Why bother delving into the psyche of the criminal to find out the background behind them committing a crime and what reaction is most suitable when you could employ precedence to determine a verdict and move on to the next case?

But with this method there is no guaranteeing that the reaction would have any moral impact. Where one person may be corrected with a mere reprimand for lying, another may need their tongue cut off.

With this, the idea of a defending and prosecuting lawyer is bazaar. Currently a prosecuting lawyer will work to inflict the harshest punishment upon the accused, the defending lawyer will work to either convince others of the accused's innocence or attain the least punishment.

So, what if the defendant feels extreme pangs of guilt? "Sorry your honor, I know that the maximum penalty for shoplifting is one year in prison, but my client requests to be punished to the extent of amputating his hand."

I guess the legal system has safe guards to protect a person from themselves. If someone needs protection from themselves then obviously they aren't being genuine to their interests, given the altruism that "no one prefers pain to pleasure." And if someone doesn't agree with that statement, then they cannot abide by the golden rule.

I guess that teaching of Buddha and Jesus, doesn't take into account the masochists of the world. Or is it that the masochists simply are incapable of being honest to themselves that pleasure is better than pain? Either way, another rule must be created.