>And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical. I'm not seeing the logical flow, p

>And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical. I'm not seeing the logical flow, perhaps you can point it out to me: John wants Tim's wife, Marcy. Marcy is not happy with Tim, and she is in love with John. However, John knows that Marcy will never marry him while married to Tim. One day John and Tim are out for a Swim in the lake and Tim begins to Drown. John can save him but decides not to knowing that he will never get caught for the murder. After letting Tim die, John seduces his wife. Before the murder, John has a consideration "wait, if everyone killed, that would lead to an unpleasant world where I may get killed myself." Then John comes to his senses and realizes: 1. No one is going to find out so it is impossible that my actions will influence anybody. 2. This consideration of what happens if everyone kills is not relevant to my current act of killing Tim as killing Tim is very unlikely to result in everyone killing. Thus, John realizes it is advantageous to kill Tim and John and Marcy live happily every after. Please point out to me the logical (not moral, but logical ) flaw in John's reasoning: