Theistic morality

[The Omnissiunt One]

The fact it's not literal and ultimately comes down to common sense shows that it's not so much as a 'rule' as a guideline. A guideline that isn't original to the Bible too.

I don't think I ever referred to it as a "rule" and I am not clear as to why this is even relevant to the question I asked (the last one directed to Omni). Even if the "guideline" I follow is not original with the Bible it is certainly still Biblical and my question still remains relative to the advantages of preference utilitarianism in making moral decision over the approach I follow.

If we don't take the Golden Rule literally, so that EvF's criticisms would no longer apply, there is very little difference between this principle and preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism takes others' interests as seriously as one's own, which is basically putting oneself in another person's shoes. 'If I were that person, I wouldn't like to be kicked in the bollocks (continuing the example )' is the same as, 'That person's interest in not being kicked in the bollocks is as important as my interest in it.'

Of course, by questioning the 'advantages' of one moral system over another, you are presupposing some set of moral principles by which we can judge which is better. That's the trouble with such things... it often boils down to a battle of what Daniel Dennett calls the 'intuition pump'. From Wiki: 'An intuition pump is a term coined by Daniel Dennett for a thought experiment structured to elicit intuitive answers about a problem.' This would apply to your thought experiment with Joseph, where you (I suspect) tried to undermine PU (as preference utilitarianism shall henceforth be known, because it's a bugger of a phrase to type) by pointing out that it would sometimes allow slavery and murder. Intuition pumping isn't a rational way to go about things, though.