Kant\'s Opinion on the Golden Rule

¶ … Metaphysics of Morals" philosopher Immanuel Kant famously argues that his Categorical Imperative is fundamentally different, and superior to the greatly flawed Golden Rule. Kant asserts that the Categorical Imperative is based on the solid rock of rationality, and allows for the formulation of universal moral rules. In contrast, he notes that the Golden Rule is not based on the rational will of the human being, and cannot formulate true universal moral rules. Ultimately, the Golden Rule is a much better tool to help guide the irrational reality of human morality and behavior.

The Golden Rule is often considered to be one of humanities most basic, fundamental moral tenants. It appears in most moral traditions and in the majority of major religions in many different guises. It often appears in a positive form, as in the Christian Bible, " 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' (Matthew 7: 12" (cited in Xrefer). Similarly the Golden Rule sometimes appears in a negative form, urging the individual not to do unto others what you do not want done to you, as in the teachings of Confucius. The Golden Rule does not speak specifically to particular ideals, beliefs or moral principles, thus making it widely useful across a wide span of religious and cultural traditions (Xrefer).

Kant's discussion of the golden rule is firmly rooted in his Categorical Imperative. As such, a through understanding of the Categorical Imperative is necessary to understand why the philosopher would be as dismissive of the Golden Rule as clearly inferior to his own Categorical Imperative.

Kant developed the Categorical Imperative in what is arguably his most famous work, aptly and awkwardly entitled "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals." In this profoundly influential text, the great philosopher undergoes a thorough investigation for the underlying causes of morality, and attempts to establish a supreme, overarching principle that should guide al human morality.

The Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names defines the categorical imperative as: "In the moral philosophy of Kant a distinction between ways in which the will may be obliged. A hypothetical imperative (of the form, 'If you want X, then do A.') is always conditioned on something else, but a categorical imperative (of the form 'Do A.') is absolute and universal. Moral action for Kant always follows from the categorical imperative, 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.'"

Kant himself more succinctly states his Categorical Imperative as "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Under Kant's Categorical Imperative, an action can only be considered moral if it fulfils three important criteria. First, the action must be judged to be universally acceptable. Second, the action must be judged to respect the dignity of persons. Finally, the judged action must be acceptable to rational people. Further, the Categorical Imperative must always be followed regardless of individual self-interest.

Kant's Categorical Imperative has often been interpreted as simply a restatement of the Golden Rule. In fact, Kant himself seems to have argued that the Categorical Imperative was closely related to the Golden Rule, and that it logically emerged from the Golden Rule. However, in the endnotes of "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" Kant clearly argues that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are two completely different philosophical approaches.

Certainly, the Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule appear to be greatly similar. The Categorical Imperative clearly notes that an action can only be considered moral if it is applicable as a moral law. Once again, Kant himself states, "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Certainly, it appears that Kant feels that one must show proper respect for other persons, and to treat others as one wishes to be treated. On the surface this clearly seems to be a simple and unambiguous restatement of the Golden Rule.

As established previously, the Golden Rule has been a fundamental moral tenant across religious and cultural traditions that are as diverse and influential as Christianity and Confucianism. Nonetheless, in the footnotes of the "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" Immanuel Kant famously argued that the Golden Rule was too trivial, and also far too limited to be a universal law. Certainly, given the ubiquitous nature of the Golden Rule, and its wide acceptance as an important moral tenant, Kant's bold and surprising comment requires some investigation.

Interestingly, a close analysis of the Categorical Imperative reveals that it is in fact very different from the Golden Rule, as Kant himself had asserted. While both rules speak to generalizing a sentiment regarding the self toward other individuals, a close examination reveals that the similarities do not extend far beyond this.

The Categorical Imperative is clearly independent of the sentiment regarding the self. In contrast, the Golden Role's moral strength comes directly from, and is dependent on, a sentiment regarding the self.

In other words, Kant's Categorical Imperative is clearly based on the rationality of individuals. Kant notes that rational morality must be coherent, consistent, and involve universal morals. As such, rational morality must necessarily recognize that other humans share the same concerns and morality, and that to mistreat other people is a morally incoherent action.

Fundamentally, Kant argues that the Categorical Imperative is an objective principle that is based solidly on a rational decision. To Kant, human will is a rational facility that can overcome human inclinations in order to discern a universal law. As such, humans should obey the Categorical Imperative even if it defies their instinctive moral reaction to a situation.

Kant feels that the Golden Rule is fundamentally inferior to the Categorical Imperative because the Golden Rule does not appeal to rationality, and thus cannot be established as a universal rule. The Golden Rule could argue that a lie committed to save another's feelings could be moral, while a lie committed to deceive would be immoral. To Kant, the Categorical Imperative is superior because it can divine a universal law: lying is immoral, regardless of the circumstance.