I read the article and it brings up some interesting thoughts. Here is what comes to mind...
Often, those with a Christian background always seem to turn to the golden rule, "treat others as you'd have them treat you." However, on many occasions I have found this a difficult principle to live by; in that, often times I'm not exactly sure how I would have another treat me in that situation.
With that being said, I find myself falling back on the origins of Jesus's philosophical precepts, which are in essence Buddhist. There is a large time line of Jesus's life missing from the bible, however, he has been noted by eastern historians who considered him a Buddha.
Now that is all neither here nor there, however, what I was getting at is the eastern equivalent of, "Treat others as you'd have them treat you," which is, "Harm others as you would have them harm you."
I've known about this principle for some time, however, in thinking about this, I've never really applied it. I've spent my whole life wondering how I should treat others in particular situation, wondering how I would have them treat me, and often times being baffled. However, it seems to harm others as you would have them harm you is a much different way of looking at things. I might just focus on that instead, it might be less confusing.
Also, thee *ughh*, analogy of the swamping of the boat is interesting. Going back to treating others as you'd have them treat you... If you knew in foresight rather than in hindsight, that some one helping you would cause suffering greater than the sum total of your suffering with out the help, would you really want that help? If you were an individual on a trajectory of malice, then perhaps so. Which again, brings me back to the higher clarity, for me personally of, harming others as you'd have them harm you.
Furthermore, Jesus, whom many consider to be the highest ideal of morality in practice of living life, did not live as those who subscribe to his faith do. Jesus did not have a metaphorical boat from which to pull people from deadly waters. Metaphorically speaking he walked on water, and if some one in peril, through faith, could will it so, could also walk on water. This is about teaching one to fish, rather then giving them a fish.
Jesus had no money to give to the poor, he was the poor. Jesus had no home to shelter the homeless, he was homeless. Jesus had no way to defend the weak, he was the weak and defenseless.
Did Jesus not over turn the money changers tables? He got angry when it was called for.
I know I'm heavily off track, but, those are my thoughts on the article.
---
As far as the questions you pose Raven22....
I am 29 and find myself in dealings with others to generally be chivalrous. Perhaps not 1920's or 1840's chivalrous, but mostly so...