My argument from the counterexamples is valid. As to your argument:
I didn’t address this because the form is quite strange. I pointed out that P2 is an ‘if’ without a ‘then’, and you replied that, “I put ‘if’ to mention if you accept the rule thumb.”
So apparently P2 means this:
- If you accept the “rule of thumb,” then you don’t want others to violate your life
With that sorted, it is still not clear how C2 is being inferred. The idea is apparently, “You don’t want others to violate your life, and you have no right to violate the lives of others, therefore C2.”
The first problem is that P1 says nothing about what I want. It only says something about what rights I have. So there is a logical leap from “I have a right to prevent others from violating my life,” to, “I do not want others to violate my life” (and my first counterexample showed that this leap does not always obtain).
The second problem is that even if that logical leap were valid, we would have shown only one single case where the negative Golden Rule holds. There is nothing to justify this inference: <If I must not violate another’s life in the way I reject my life being violated, then it is generally true that I must not do unto others what I would not have them do unto me>.
The interesting thing about the Golden Rule is that it is adaptable to all sorts of different cultures and circumstances. So a Lockean “right to life” based on sovereign individualism will surely countenance the Golden Rule along the lines of its own axioms, but cultures which reject the Lockean paradigm are also quite happy with the Golden Rule. So while I agree that the Golden Rule can be applied to Locke’s moral/political philosophy, nevertheless this does not mean that Locke’s philosophy entails the Golden Rule in its full, adaptable force. Lots of things that are compatible with the Golden Rule are incompatible with Locke, even though Locke will accept the Golden Rule in every case where his axioms are secure.