[michaelmrose]

Why would you think a good standard would be a situation which would be the hardest imaginable for you to make a clear headed rational choice. The situation where you would be most tempted to choose petty emotions over real justice.

This is about the worst standard I can imagine.

[SilasX]

The standard wasn't "if I would want to do this to Hitler, let's do this in the general case".

The standard was "If I wouldn't be willing to use it, even against Hitler, it should be categorically disallowed."[1]

That is, if you consider it so brutal that you'd feel queasy about using it even against someone really bad, i.e. a case where you would most favor casting morals aside, then you know it's beyond the pale.

It may not make sense if you've never experienced something so bad that you said, "wow, I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy", but I'm sure at least some fraction of the population has had that thought.

[1] If necessary, replace "categorically disallowed" with "off the table".

[michaelmrose]

Thanks for the clarification but its still a bad standard. The majority seemingly don't mind doing terrible things to people just because their skins the wrong color let alone their worst enemy. It only seems like a decent standard to you because you are relatively a better person.