Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule
Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule
Kant’s categorical imperative is to will without contradiction and is tested by universalizability. The golden rule is similar to this notion in that it is a universally moral principle that forces one to imagine both positions of an action. However, the two contrast more than they compare.
The categorical imperative is an objective imperative, making one morally required to act according to it without exception. It addresses our maxims, the reasons why we act, rather than our actions; and it focuses on the respect for all people. These maxims come from a sense of duty and must have moral worth; they are made universal by having reason in view and using logic as the standard of judgment. If I believed it was best to steal a car for myself, and therefore believed everyone should steal cars; the notion of property is undermined and the maxim self-destructs because there would be no one’s property left to steal. Using reason, we can identify the logical contradiction when we universalize this impermissible maxim and can form categorical, universally binding rules on all rational agents.
The Golden Rule differs in that it is subjective to ones preferences, feelings, emotions, and is used as the basis for justification of actions. If I prefer to be deceived, then I would lie and follow the Golden Rule based on my subjective preferences. This hypothetical imperative cannot be entirely universal and doesn’t demand the respect for all people as the categorical one does. It allows room for desires and inclinations that contradict the order of reason. Due to the subjectivity of the Golden Rule and the discrepancy of subjective preferences, I think that Kant’s categorical imperative is a more appealing and reassuring construction of ethics; it forces reason to look after the interest of inclinations, which can be threatening to the moral duty of
Kant’s categorical imperative is to will without contradiction and is tested by universalizability. The golden rule is similar to this notion in that it is a universally moral principle that forces one to imagine both positions of an action. However, the two contrast more than they compare.
The categorical imperative is an objective imperative, making one morally required to act according to it without exception. It addresses our maxims, the reasons why we act, rather than our actions; and it focuses on the respect for all people. These maxims come from a sense of duty and must have moral worth; they are made universal by having reason in view and using logic as the standard of judgment. If I believed it was best to steal a car for myself, and therefore believed everyone should steal cars; the notion of property is undermined and the maxim self-destructs because there would be no one’s property left to steal. Using reason, we can identify the logical contradiction when we universalize this impermissible maxim and can form categorical, universally binding rules on all rational agents.
The Golden Rule differs in that it is subjective to ones preferences, feelings, emotions, and is used as the basis for justification of actions. If I prefer to be deceived, then I would lie and follow the Golden Rule based on my subjective preferences. This hypothetical imperative cannot be entirely universal and doesn’t demand the respect for all people as the categorical one does. It allows room for desires and inclinations that contradict the order of reason. Due to the subjectivity of the Golden Rule and the discrepancy of subjective preferences, I think that Kant’s categorical imperative is a more appealing and reassuring construction of ethics; it forces reason to look after the interest of inclinations, which can be threatening to the moral duty of