I call that the platinum rule. Treat others as they desire to be treated.

@Wildflower
I run my life by Ethics, tempered with Empathy.

You can't always get what you want
But if you try
Sometimes
You get what you need

I commented earlier up the thread on the silver rule (do not do unto others as you would not have done to you) and some of the implications of the shift from that to the golden rule.

I would offer that it is still a better route than either the golden or platinum, as it has been called here. The platinum still carries with it the possibility of wrong action, only through misinterpretation, as has been alluded to already.

Granted, the silver rule can carry with it the same danger as the trolley problem, wherein inaction becomes the less moral or immoral option. However, I would note that the silver rule can still be a call to positive action in a circumstance where what one would NOT want done to them is to NOT act.

I would not want to be left on the side of the road, battered and bleeding, so I would act to help someone in that circumstance.

@Torq All of which is effectively solved with Ethics and Empathy.
It is not Ethical to leave a person bleeding by the side of the road
Nor is it Empathetic
As such it would take a very extreme set of circumstances for me to bypass such an event, like I had a car chock full of bleeding dying people under fire, and stopping for one more would get all of them dead.
The needs of the many . . .

@Davesnothere I confess, I'm not really sure what you mean by "solved with Empathy and Ethics [sic]". Although, you've capitalized them, so it's possible you mean something other than what meaning I assign to those words.

Ethics, to my understanding, is just what we're talking about here. Rules of consideration by which we temper our decisions and actions. They can vary widely from person to person.

Empathy is certainly a guiding principle in my ethics, but it is not a given that it must be a consideration when devising some ethical system. I also certainly wouldn't characterize it as the sole basis for a proper ethical system. The "cruel to be kind" cliche comes to mind.

All three rules, I would propose, require some form of empathy. That is the ability to imagine what some act, when committed upon another, would feel like for us. Essentially, that is what empathy is; guessing that someone else experiences what you would in that circumstance.

Ironically, it is this very feature of empathy that creates the possible problem I noted above. The potential that we guess wrong or assume incorrectly, and ultimately commit a wrong act.

The quintessential expression and examination of the "needs of the many" ethical stance is the trolley problem. I think it's also relevant to note the interesting math that goes into prioritizing our empathy in the sorts of situation you cited. While one may empathize with the person on the side of the road, that does not outweigh the empathy for the greater number of people in the car: and, of course, oneself.

Interesting to note the positive and negative forms of assertion of the 'rule', where the positive command to act a certain way suggests more and the negative prohibition suggests less.

Then again the following seems to be on a higher and more difficult to reach moral plain then the 'rule':

‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matthew 5:43-45.)