Categorical Imperative vs. Golden Rule?

I do not think that the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule are really opposed at all. Take, for example, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: "Always treat another person as an end in himself, and never as a mere means." This is to say that we should not simply use other people, but respect them as rational beings. The other person, Kant reasons, is a rational person like me and I should treat another person in a way that I would like myself as a rational being to be treated. This sounds a lot like the Golden Rule's "Treat another person as you would like to be treated yourself."

The benefit of Kant's position is that it offers much more than the simple Golden Rule: Act as if your maxim were a universal law of nature, and act as if you are a legislator of a possible Kingdom of Ends. Kant's position, that is, has a wider scope than the Golden Rule. Moreoever, Kant offers his ideas of a perfect and imperfect duties to bolster his account of moral responsibility.

If taken by itself, the Golden Rule is not a reliable rule. What if a person is masochistic or likes to be harmed---should they then act towards others as they themselves would like to be treated? Clearly not. Now, someone would say that such people are few and far in between and such minorities should not have an effect on the reliability of the Golden Rule. However, there are indeed quite a few people like this, as there are quite a few websites dedicated to this very thing. Also, see any dating site with people looking for such relationships.

On a simply everyday level, the Golden Rule also breaks down with so-called normal people. Each person has his own personality, and some people are quite passive while others are aggressive. Those who are passive might find it alright that others take advantage of them (we all know people like this), but they usually do not like it happening to others. Likewise, a person who is very aggressive and egotistic certainly would not appreciate it if other aggressive and egotistic people treated them that way. This Golden Rule "boomerang ethics", as I like to call it, is insufficient in and of itself.

Cheers.

The categorical imperative says that for something to be "true" (whatever truth is...) it must be seen as true at all times, in all situations and circumstance and by all people. The only thing that has been found to meet this criteria are the known laws of physics and even they may be subject to change as new discoveries arise.

The "Golden Rule" says that one should always (with no exceptions) treat all others as you would wish for them to treat you. Problems immediately arise when one considers what might be understood as the "greater good" or doing something that will benefit the largest number of persons but may, in fact and in deed, hurt the minority.

The Gautama Buddha resolved the issue by directing others to live there lives so as to do no harm or, at least, to do as little harm to others as possible.

In human relations, there are few if any absolutes.

namaste

The ORACLE told ME that both of them fail in the same ways and for you to read "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" by Stefan Molyneux.

http://freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/UniversallyPr...

the cat imp is very similar to the golden rule, but more comprehensively stated. hence i support both, but favor cat imp. TQRP

"I think I know... I don't think I know... I don't think I think I know... I don't think I think." - Ed

As every situation is different there really is not one that would be "better"

Some time you got to "Know when to hold'um, Know when to Fold'um, and Know when to Run."

*me* thinks you need to do your own homework.

THE ORACLE says you won't learn by cheating