While I wait I’ll add a quick clarification to my last long reply to Fixed. I should have been more clear in my explanation that I believe all life, indeed all being, seeks to minimize contradiction, to become as consistent with itself as possible. I think these contradictions are experienced ontologically, biologically and psychologically as burdens and energy drains, and being always seeks to either resolve the contradiction or to incorporate it into a higher synthesis thus encompassing it and rendering it “frozen” and less problematic (and even useful).
When being encounters a contradiction it is logically driven to either resolve it (make it go away) of to expand and encompass the contradiction, thus making it usefully part of that being itself for which the contradiction is able to be encountered and experienced qua contradiction.
This relates directly to my views on morality being derived from a higher tectonic of the rational-logical. What we call morality is an attempt, made possible and necessary for certain kinds of beings capable of doing so, to resolve certain logical contradictions that said being is capable of encountering and experiencing by virtue of being that such and such kind of being which it is. For an extreme example, raping babies implies a logical contradiction because we know unconsciously at least that the baby does not want that to happen, and that we ourselves would not want that to happen to us, and that the baby is logically similar to ourselves (back when we know thy we ourselves were also a baby once), and that the act of doing something like that, even if to the rapist it appears as valuable for some reason, implies a deep contradiction with that which oneself is.
This contradiction is a problem because as I noted above we are logically driven to either resolve away or overcome and freeze contradictions, because of the added energy waste that the contradiction implies and because of how we psychologically feel the contradiction as problematic, like an itch (as in cognitive dissonance for instance). Therefore there are a huge number of possible things and actions and desires and goals and outcomes that produce some degree of contradiction in us and produce in us the awareness of that contradiction; these sort of things are what I am calling aspects of the moral sphere.
The golden rule is so because to violate it implies a contradiction, and we feel that contradiction in our very being. If we do not feel it then that means we are not able to encounter and experience that said contradiction, which means that in that particular we are not morally capable, which means we are not rationally and perceptibly developed enough to feel and recognize the contradiction as contradiction.
Hope that offers some clarification.