We were talking about this in ethics class the other day.

What do you see as the differences, if any, between the Golden Rule and Kant's catagorical imperative.

Golden Rule: "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
(or Do not on to others as you'd not have others do unto you)

Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. "

Your thoughts on them, in comparison to one another.

My thoughts are its shame we can't just count to three & have humanity universally apply either or. They seem to propose the same thing.

The Golden Rule frames morality in a person-to-person ratio (implying but not necessitating a one-to-one exchange, e.g: "I won't do this to you because I wouldn't want you doing this to me").

Kant's Categorical Imperative is a bit broader, for it extends not just beyond person-to-person exchanges but also person-world and person-self exchanges. "I will not pollute, and I think it would be great if universally, no one polluted." "I will not destroy myself, because categorically, it would not be good if everyone destroyed themselves."

This very difference is also epistemic--the Golden Rule places motivation in terms of desire ("what do you want/not want"), whereas Kant hopes that morality stems from the use of pure reason ("what is most reasonable/not reasonable).

I'm not sure if the world actually has enough available resources to supply all life's needs without conflict. In the end I guess it depends on a universal willingness to voluntarily sacrifice for the greater good. In the end mother nature can undue all planning. Life is inherently unfair. I'm not sure if Kant's categorical imperative is functional in reality.

Both rely upon perception.

Both can improve relations among people if even attempted because they build trust.

I like to think most of humanity functions on the basis of one or the other though deep down.

Thats not what I'm asking. I'm talking about a compare and contrast.

I think under Kant's imperative, through the use of reasoning more than one conclusion could be formed, possibly in opposition. When is minority rights not over run ultimately by majority rights under this system?

There has to be certain willingness by the majority to sacrifice when the need arises.

The Golden Rule allows individuals to determine when to sacrifice. I find that appealing as it empowers individuals more, or seems to. Constantly acting in restraint of the entire world at large seems pretty restrictive to me.

I suspect that if you followed either/or in application, conclusions could be formed which humanity finds inherently repulsive. That's why we don't have any perfected ethics systems. At least that's what I concluded from my medical ethics class.

I think Kant's imperative allows for the determination to sacrifice as well. One could say, "Rationally, it would be nice if everyone in the world sacrificed a bit of their rights--therefore, that is what is moral for me to do."

Is nice rational? I thought that was emmotional or sentimental. Not quite the same.

I just find humanity has such a wide spectrum of variation in well...everything including in opposition that it'd be impossible to please everybody or not insult someone. Kant's emperative just seems impossible to really live by exccept on surface. Golden Rule is more flexible because it mostly applies to the humanity you encounter or exchange with.

Nice is part of the value judgement made when you will somthing to be a universal law. "Nice" can be logical.

Then one could say, "It is most rational if everyone in the world sacrificed a bit of their rights--therefore, that is what is moral for me to do."

My point is that Kant's categorical imperative can be used to justify some element of sacrifice (though the imperative by no means necessitates it).

I have to go. I'll have to invert my thinking to nice as logical to form a new opinion.
I'll get back to you on that.

Well, I'm back. The thought occurred to me that well, wouldn't it be nice if the world didn't have to compete so much. Maybe eliminating a few million in the world helps us all.

Nice is subjective. Not exactly good reasoning. Generally benefits should outweigh all losses and potential losses. It can't just be a wash.

I think the difficulty lies in getting a true picture around us. We have limited vision & there are forces at work to diliberately obscure the true picture. Prudence seems too be the operative word in everything. How unfair the world that we're not all born wise!

My Philosophy professor believed that Kant was just restating the Golden Rule in his own words. I think they are both driving at the same thing, whether the language they use happens to match up or not.

You don't think that refer to different reasoning for actions/different types of relationships in regards to society/self?

The Golden Rule: “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” This is odd, as how does anyone build a foundation on this maxim? This would be relevant at a micro-social level, not at the macro-social level. If someone grew up in a violent social network, what would be common would be violence. Everyone responds to their social network, finding and understanding social taboos during childhood is the basis of our world view. The golden rule in a social or political only last with the generation it comes from, as each generation redefines what is social or acceptable. The direct answer to deal with the golden rule is when someone breaks the social accepted taboo, or, has a mild violation of accepted norms. The golden rule is generational, as how to deal with witches in Salem in 1692 is different than how to deal with witches in Salem in 2007.

Kant on the other hand deals with universal laws, not with rules. The rules are unchanging, it does not matter what decade or what century the laws of the society were violated. With Kant, any changes with the reasons to change the rules are difficult to change. If the law has been around for centuries with different speakers with different voices supporting or modify the universal laws, which is acceptable in moderation. Supporting a clear shift in the balance of accepted and settled laws, would be for the first generation as supporting non-rational theories. True, the times and state of the social network has to be altered, it is a question when or if it is the correct time to alter the current accepted belief.

The former can transform into the latter, I believe.

I think we have been touching on what I think, but here it is anyway. The Golden Rule, is not held to any type of rational thinking. Essentially, I can do anything as long as I am willing to accept the fact that it will be done to me. If I steal, then I must be prepared to be victim of theft as well.

The Categorical Imperative, is based on the assumption of full rationality. I ought not to steal because it would be irrational to make it imperative that all people ought to steal. Kant would never say that I can do as I wish, just because I am willing to accept that everyone will also do it, becuase that would not be rational.