Categorical imperative: "Act that the maxim of your action can be a universal law."
Golden rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated."
Is the Categorical Imperative a much broader, more universal form of the golden rule? I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but pretty darn close.
Kant's definition is much more specific in it's conditions. The golden rule can be interpreted in many ways. For example, I first read the proverb to be a principle of a rational self interest. "I should be kind, because I like it when others are kind to me." That interpretation, in fact, leans more to the consequential side of things. The question is, "Why do I do unto others, as I would want done unto me?" Because it's my duty, because I have an inclination to, because I just wanna be loved? But, I see what you mean. I'd want everyone to act on this saying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you notion Nathan that the categorical imperative and the golden rule do have striking similarities. As you stated Anshu, Kant's definition is more specific and the golden rule is easily understood. However, if an individual is living by Kant's categorical imperative, and is choosing to only execute behaviors that can be universalized, meaning that everyone acts in accordance to this maxim or rule, then the individual willing this action would at some point be the recipient of the same action that they willed universally. When something is universal, it means just that--it is "universal." Everyone is affected. No one is excluded.
ReplyDeleteThe golden rule in my opinion put Kant's idea in simple terms for everyone to understand and to remember. If you're willing something to be universal, you would want to be a recipient of it as well. Meaning that you want to be treated that way.