Kant and the Golden Rule - Essay Sample

Introduction

The golden rule is according to many, a universal ethical principle that has ever been formulated in history. It is usually defined in various ways depending on the cultures, and the kind of faith shared within a group of people including religious movements such as Christianity, Islamic, Judaism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Hinduism among others (Guseinov 39). The most used definitions are 'do unto others as you would wish for them to do unto you' and 'do not do unto others what you would not wish to be done unto you.' The two examples have the same meaning with the former being famous among the Christians and Muslims as it is usually in direct form while the latter, which is in prohibitive form, is mostly taught among the Buddhists and Hindus.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The golden rule is usually incorporated in several types including empathy, role-taking, silver rule, platinum rule and the rule of love of which each relates to either the direct or prohibitive forms of the ethical principle in one way or another. The universal elaboration is that a person should consider their own feelings and how they would react if what they are doing to others was reciprocated and be done to them. It is, hence, also known as the ethic of reciprocity. However, some people such as the famous philosopher Immanuel Kant criticized the rule through his formulation of the categorical imperative in 1785 where he deduced that a person's actions should not be guided by faith but by reasons (Pogge 199). Therefore, the philosophical concept suggests that one should act according to a motto that one would wish it becomes a universal law that would be followed by any rational individual.

Some people, however, depict that the categorical imperative is a twisted definition of the golden rule but of which is wrong. In his formulation, Kant thought that people should behave the same and through the guidance of reason such that they are not divided along boundaries of faith and cultures. While his concept targets rational people, the rule is focused on what people believe and what they have been taught or know. Everyone should act in a way that they expect all people to act towards each other of, but it does not apply to some sections of the global population including non-humans and irrational individuals such as the mentally ill. If one cannot think properly or does have the knowledge to reason between what should be wrong and what should be done, then those subjects cannot depend on categorical imperative as the guidance of their actions.

Kant, however, does not consider this to be the case when he goes ahead to criticize the golden rule which he believes to be a non-universal moral law but a concept to suppress individuals within their fears, desires, feelings, stereotypes, emotions, perceptions and cultures (Pogge 192). It does not give the doer a choice as it compels one to act as per the innocence of their soul and mind. For instance, in a relationship where a husband is having a serious cruel with his wife such that the latter see it safe to separate while the other wants to find a favorable solution that will save the marriage, it would be difficult to decide as per the rule. What if the wife although she wants to separate still loves her husband and feels sorry for him because she knows he might be unable to move on after the divorce? She might be compelled to work out the relationship to avoid the guilt of hurting the other party or messing up his life.

More so, the philosopher feels that the golden rule is difficult to follow considering that people have different points of views and interpretations of various deeds and decisions by others. Whereas some actions are right to others, there are those who consider them wrong. Thus, this poses the question, how can one do unto the other what according to them it is wrong? Supposedly, a Christian and a Muslim are sharing a meal, should the former serve the latter pork because it is his favorite kind of meat? The obvious answer to this is no since, despite the desire to eat pork, he knows that Islamic religion does not allow its follows to eat that pig's meat and so, should not do unto the other what he expects to be done unto him. Kant, therefore, argues that if the rule is not working like in this example, it cannot be universalized and it would be difficult to consider it as an appropriate guide to morality (Guseinov 45). It should not be viewed as a rule, but an ethical stance since rules are created to be followed of which it is difficult when it comes to the golden rule.

Apparently, some philosophers argue that Kant's categorical imperative is similar to the golden rule while others seem to differ on this. I think those opposing that the two concepts are identical because there are significant differences between them. First, the golden rule involves both sides that are the first and the third persons while the other does not emphasize on the 'I' factor but only if the law can be utilized universally. As the philosopher elaborates, promise-breaking is wrong not because it depends on one's emotions towards the other or it shows disrespect, but it is because it cannot be universalized. Promises are made in faith, but in categorical imperative, no believe is needed but reasons only (Hirst 329). So, promise-breaking would be impossible since there are none to be broken. With this, he suggests that the doer will be acting universally without contradictions implying that the action is right. Second, categorical imperative depicts one's deeds are actions to humanity and rather not to a section of people (Hirst 330). Unlike in the golden rule where a person might be limited to do something because of the cultures or faith followed by another like illustrated in the Christian-Muslim scenario, there are no limitations in Kant's perspective considering the laws are universal and apply to everybody. The only requirement is a maxim that can be expected to be followed by any other rational individual.

In a nutshell, I believe Kant is right with his illustration of the categorical imperative, and despite the faiths and cultures being shared by people in different regions worldwide, it should be the linking aspect among these beliefs. It urges that people should act according to how they believe should be done in any part of the globe regardless of who the kind of people involved. Unlike in the golden rule, no wrongdoing is justifiable including hurting a masochist or sadist. People in either of these classifications are associated with pain, so, harming them can be justifiable when following the golden rule because one would be treating them as they treat others. I, hence, prefer Kant's ethical principle to the law of reciprocity that supports might entail reciprocating harm with harm.

Works Cited

Guseinov, Abdusalam A. "The golden rule of morality." Russian Studies in Philosophy 52.3 (2014): 39-55.

Hirst, E. W. "The categorical imperative and the Golden Rule." Philosophy 9.35 (2000): 328-335.

Pogge, Thomas. "The categorical imperative." Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield) (1998): 189-213.