How is Immanuel Kant principle of morality differ from the golden rule?

Answer 1

For something to be morally good (in the words of Kant), you must be able to universalize the maxim (have it be something everyone wills/wants). Which is pretty much the golden rule. The difference is that Kant says three things must be possible for it to be good.

1: Formulate the maxim- "I will do it"

2: Universalize the maxin - Everyone may/everyone will do it as well

3: Ask if you can will 1 & 2 at the same time w/o defeating the maxim

One example on how the golden rule differs is:

Someone asks for a loan even when they know they cannot pay for it, but they promise to do so.

Kant:

1- Possible

2- Possible (everyone can do it)

3- Impossible, the goal was to get the loan, but if everyone promised to pay the money back when they knew they couldn't, promises would no longer exist because no one would accept them. Therefore the goal is not reached.

Golden Rule:

You would not want someone to do that do you, therefore you wouldn't do it

So they both agree that it is not morally good, but in different manners. I hope this helps, if you have any more questions email me: ivins@wisc.edu

Answer 2

Immanuel Kant's principle of morality is based on the idea that one should act according to duty and moral rules without any consideration for personal desires or consequences, known as the Categorical Imperative. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, suggests treating others as you would like to be treated, emphasizing empathy and reciprocity in ethical decision-making. Kant's approach focuses on the inherent duty to act morally, while the Golden Rule promotes ethical behavior based on empathy and self-reflection.