The Golden Rule says that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What is the difference between the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative? Explain.
Immanuel Kant states if an action is commanded as being good without qualification the imperative is categorial. These categorial imperatives are unchanging. Kant also says that you should act on a rule only if it can become a universal law. So what Kant is trying to express is that if you are hungry then you should eat because this is a law that can be adopted universally among all people. Kant also says “man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always regarded at the same time as an end.” He says because man is rational they are of worth but anything that is non-rational are just things and are there to show effort of our actions. Humans themselves are ends in themselves because we are rational and should never be used as a means.
The idea of categorial imperatives is quite alluring as an idea. The fact that a person would base his or her decision on the fact that if another person were in the same situation as themselves they would make the same decision is great. The golden rule says do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but kant would say do only what others would do in the same situation as you and only if it can become universal law among others. So basically as the golden rule would say if someone stabs you in the back then feel free to stab them back. The golden rule is based on feelings and interpretation and can be misinterpreted quite easily. Whereas the categorial imperative has the direct approach of do only if it can become universal law despite feelings. This way of thinking I believe is a steadfast and very logical way to live ones life. But at the same time I don’t think it is possible because emotion that is in every person which in my thinking makes it almost impossible to follow the categorial imperative’s way of making decisions.
bryanhorsting 