Okay, I’ve had some time to think about these questions. My response is not totally thought out, since my mind is a bit jumbled at the moment, mixed with some wishful thinking, so it's a SUPER LONG response, sorry!

I still feel that the Golden Rule can be applied, at least abstractly, to some of the questions and problems posed BUT much better when combined with a newer better mythos (and by that I mean a truth) which could help us try to find a BALANCE.

And by mythos, I don’t really mean something new to be invented, but something that is already common but is being ignored, not being used yet for a way to ground us, away from the old myths, which are no longer relevant.

Here are my responses to each of your examples of questions and problems that the Golden Rule is unable to solve and how if combined with a new mythos, we might find a better path forward.

When the interest of individuals collides with the common good: which side is more important and has the right of way, so to speak?

If the mythos demonstrates the need for a BALANCE between what is good for the individual and the common good, that could help. But also empathy for the common good -- if the golden rule is applied to the common good, and the individual contemplates that s/he is part of the common good then that comes down to moral dilemma.

Is "hard work" a value in itself (like in the USA), so that hard-working people are eo ipso virtuous ? Or is work in general a burden and nuisance, one should work as much as necessary and otherwise enjoy life (like in France)?

Hard work itself may not be a value, especially if that hard work is going against the common good. We should do what we can to promote our values, but sometimes doing nothing or just being patient might be wiser. By enjoying life, or being in the absorbing phase, sometimes we are still contributing to the betterment of society, in that we are learning and supporting those who make a living by serving those who are enjoying life. Sometimes I provide the service (and get paid) and sometimes I enjoy the services of others and pay for it. The BALANCE is that I have to serve for the money I receive to pay others service.

Is it acceptable and normal to bribe officials and officer, like in India? Does it depend on the situation, like in Italy or Greece? Or is it totally unacceptable, like in Finland?

No, it’s not acceptable when thinking about the golden rule with the common good in mind, rather than the individual. Question is, will my actions (my expense or acceptance) be hurting someone, and what is best for the whole, including those being hurt? Again it’s a BALANCE that must be considered. Selfishness, such as lawmaker accepting campaign donations in exchange for agreeing to hurt society to line the pockets of themselves and their donors should be unacceptable.

is higher education a virtue for as many citizens as possible, or should it be reserved for a small elite?

There is no such thing as higher education if there is not lower education, and perhaps if the opportunity was available to ALL as a choice, not a privilege, those who really want it can absorb it and (hopefully) make the world a better place... while those who don’t want it can choose not to absorb it and live a happy life without the higher education. I don’t see a problem with opening up higher education to anyone who wants it. There will always be people who don’t want it. The choice creates a BALANCE.

Should children be brought up to be well-behaved and obey their parents and teachers, as in Japan; or should their individuality develop as freely as possible, like in France or the USA?

This is another case where BALANCE is key... Yes, they should be well behaved and obey well thought out rules for their safety and the safety of others, but they should also be able to develop their individuality in order to give back to society in their own unique way if they choose to.

Is it acceptable that ordinary citizens can legally own guns?

Guns have their uses for hunting, safety and protection, but they are weapons created to cause unnatural destruction. If a mythos was based more on keeping close to nature and reserving guns as a last resort and looking at the big picture, instead of an “us and against them” attitude, then maybe there wouldn’t be such a mentality toward guns as a part of culture. It seems the gun problem in America stems from a lack of balance between the Authoritarian patriarchal mythos and the idea of freedom. Seems that the countries who have less of a gun problem have EITHER a lack of authoritarian rule OR a lack of freedom. America tries to have both, but it’s not meshing. So, maybe the answer is to change out our Authoritarian patriarchal mythos for a more peaceful BALANCE of nature mythos.

Is pornography acceptable? What about prostitution? Sex with minors? Nudity on the beach?

Pornography (in my mind) is not a balanced consensual depiction... It is someone demeaning another for ones sexual gratification. Eroticism on the other hand (in my mind) is a celebration of sexuality willingly shared for the mutual gratification of the person sharing and the person enjoying. I know this is a fine line for some, but to me it is based on BALANCE and pornography seems to be un-balanced.

Prostitution (in my mind) if it’s a decision made by the person to make an equal trade, not out of necessity or from being trafficked/pimped, or in support of an addiction habit, if made legal would carry far more safety protections, than illegal prostitution, so there is that. Many people might argue that voluntary marriage is sometimes prostitution in that one party is agreeing to serve as a sexual partner (and other things) in exchange for financial security. The BALANCE is whether someone is being forced by circumstances or another person to do something against their will -- or if there is a mutually equitable decision made by the parties involved directly, not anything to do with an outside party.

Sex with minors? There are definitely parameters to be decided on what age is appropriate for similar age sexual activity and different age activity, and of course consent has much to do with it, but also cultural maturity. If a 12 year old in biblical times was thought of as fully mature and 40 years old was considered old age, well we are in a different time now. Again, this is something that is often guided by a religion, mythos or society rules. The BALANCE I’ve been talking with in my responses would likely be age difference, maturity level, and what is acceptable in current cultural society.

Nudity on the beach? There is just plain nudity and there is lewdness or acts that mean to cause an "affront" to other beach goers... There is a definite difference between cultures that sexualize bodies because of their mythos and those who understand it's "not the meat, it's the motion" as the song goes. I go to beaches where there is nudity and other that are full of bikinis and speedoes. Most people are just there to enjoy the sun, breeze and the water, not to cause "affront" but in a culture that doesn't have a healthy view of sexuality, some folks get bothered by the nudity, but not the sexy bikinis. So, this is another case of the way a mythos could dictate how people view nudity. A mythos based in nature, I feel, would promote a healthy BALANCE allowing people to understand the difference between modesty vs prudishness, and positive body image vs
exhibitionism. In my state, citations are only given to nude beach goers who are "causing affront" which is why I use that term in my response. Nudity is illegal, but not normally cited by police. Where does one draw the line... toddlers running around splashing int the water, vs senior citizens relaxing and everyone in between. Here, if one is easily offended by the sight of nudity, they just don't go to the beaches that commonly have nudity, and stick to the resort beaches instead.

The Golden Rule. Whomever has the gold makes the rules

I believe the golden rule is just a simple rule of thumb, not the rule that will solve all life's challenges, but a good start.

I believe the "glue" you mention is whatever mythos is guiding the thoughts of a culture. If we think of a mythos as something that is believed to be true at the time and through that mythos solutions seem clear, kind of like prescription glasses. We need a new prescription.

In my mind, we are between myths, the old myths are crumbling under the weight of our new scientific understanding of how we came to be and the order of things.

I would hope that when the new mythos takes hold, it would not be one that tells people what to think, but how to think.

I get a lot of flack for suggesting a new mythos, but that is what I believe the world needs at this time... By a mythos, I don't mean something made up, but based in what we know as true at this time and willing to adapt as new information becomes available.

Yes, but get this, religion can not solve those problems either. Every single one of those problems is unresolved by religion too, nearly every one of those problems gets different answers from different religions.

To solve those problems you need to think, and while the golden rule can not find you an answer, it does give you a good reason to start thinking.

For the first question, I think it would really depend on the exact situation. "Interests of individuals" and "common good" are a bit vague and could mean quite a lot of things.

Hard work has value. Relaxation has value. Neither are virtues. I can work hard every day to make myself richer at the expense of thousands of struggling people. There is no virtue in that. The work being done can have virtue though. I'd consider the work of a doctor or nurse to have more virtue than the work of a banker or a stock broker.

It's absolutely not acceptable to bribe officials. That's circumventing the law.

Education is valuable but not a virtue. Higher education should be available to everyone but everyone does not need a masters degree or a doctorate. Some jobs require talent more than education.

I have no children and child-rearing is a subject I know too little about so I'll pass on this one.

Though personally I am in favor of MUCH MUCH MUCH stricter gun laws I am not yet in favor of a complete ban on guns. I'd be in favor of allowing the ownership of up to two firerams and only certain types of guns and a strict limit on the quantity of bullets that can be owned. This would be in addition to much stricter background checks and restrictions on certain people from owning guns at all (those with a history of violence, violent crimes, or severe mental illness).

But majority rule isn't always the answer. The majority of people are not gay nor black nor handicapped but we need laws to protect and help minorities because history has already shown that without protective laws that these people will be taken advantage of and harmed and discriminated against.

So treating others how you want to be treated is wrong? I treat people how I want to be treated.

Many of your examples are not moral issues. Additionally I don't know why you think U.S.A. parents believe their children should develop "as freely as possible". No parents I know or knew subscribed to that idea.

1. Not a question of morality.
2. Not a question of morality.
3. Apparently it is subjective based on the culture as it should be.
4. Not a question of morality.
5. Not a question of morality.
6. Not a question of morality.

Humanity doesn't need a "consistent system of values and norms", it needs the intelligence to evolve socially as the world changes. As one constant in the universe and social dynamics is change. Coming up with a "consistent system" assumes a static state of reality to apply it and that is kind of naive.

Like most questions of morality and rights it is never completely a black and white issue, but in my opinion there must be a general basic premise that personal human rights and morality can never under any circumstances be allowed to trump the collective good of the majority.

For a society to work well and for people to follow any rules-based system, it needs three things…1) consent of the majority - 2) an understanding that the rules are made for the common good and no one person’s rights trump that of any other, or indeed, that of the common good. - and - 3) free elections, representation, and an ability to air grievances.

I don’t believe we need religion to organise ourselves into a rules based moral entity, many co-operatives are based on this very principle, and a few good governments.

Many of the things you list as questions, asking how acceptable we find them, depend on a perspective which we owe entirely to where in the world we live and the type of society we have had the fortune/misfortune to be born into. Conditioning from birth if you like, in much the same way that most people are assimilated into religion as children which we adopt without thinking, we also adopt cultural norms. Because I’m British and West European…my societal norms would make me tend to side with the French on life balance and the Finns who find it unacceptable to bribe officials under any circumstances, and when it comes to the question of ordinary citizens being armed like the USA…that to me is a complete anathema!

Matias, you could have started your second paragrah with, “But in my opinion this is wrong.”

You didn’t. You started it as my old world German father-is-god, authoritarian grandfather would have.

I see the news from today’s Germany and think, “The bomb-caused destruction Germans suffered during WW2 might also have destroyed their need to obey autocratic leaders.”

Or it might not have.

"Always do more of the same unto others as they have done unto you. If we all behaved that way we do do nothing but nice things for one another, right?" Arnold Arnold.

Morality is a wholly subjective concept.

Humanity has proven that repeatedly.

The glue you speak of is called law. It only works, however, if everyone is held to it. We, Americans, live in a semi-Oligarchical nation in which scary powerful figures no longer are (crime does pay) so the system is losing cohesion.