Question

What is the difference between the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule ('do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; 'treat others the way you want to be treated')? Why, according to Kant, would the Golden Rule insufficient to serve as a rational moral principle of duty?

Answer 1

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a universal, impartial and rational call for doing one's duty. The Categorical Imperative neither encompasses consequences nor desires. It means that actions should not be motivated by any consequences or by any desires to be achieved. The act should be purely impartial, should be carried out in every circumstances and should be according to the moral reasoning of the individual. Thus,morality is carrying out out duties no matter what, and because the maxims of morality is always good, it never produces any harm to others.

The Golden Rule 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you ' ;' treat others the way you want to be treated ' is a give and take concept, that if you want goodness you should give goodness. This rule is bounded by the condition, is capable of producing good but is always motivated for achieving some purpose. If the purpose not met ,then the individual may likely discontinue the action. Also, there are chances that this Golden rule be applied for corrupt self interests.

Hence, the Golden rule as Categorical Imperative is not universal, impartial and rational. Therefore, it is insufficient to serve as a rational moral principle of duty.