>>339630424
Kant's categorical imperative makes sense, and deontology holds up, but only if people know what "good" is. The problem is that they don't, or can't make up their minds about it. So the golden rule works in principle, but in practice, people "build on top of it" as you yourself put it, and so they get further and further from it.

For example, a shitty mother abuses her child. The child becomes conditioned to feel a certain way toward the world, and this then becomes what defines their golden rule. They will believe they need X or Y, but only because of a conditioning they're not aware of. What if they were made aware of that conditioning? Suddenly, they may decide not to want to be treated the same way. The golden rule remains the same principle and it is always logical and correct, but the way it gets expressed is contextual and changes frequently as a person's self-image shifts. This is particularly damning with people who have low self-esteem and they adapt themselves to fit in with others too easily. Again, going with the golden rule, then they would expect others to treat them the same way they treat others - by reflecting their behavior back at them. And that is precisely how echo-chambers are built and maintained.

That's my only concern.