Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative is taking “the golden rule” and completely dissecting and analyzing its meaning. Taking it and literally taking it to another level. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good “rule of thumb” how to live your life Godly, generalizing The Ten Commandments. In the first part of Kants view, he’s basically saying one should only act or intend or choose to do things that can become a “universal law”. In other words, lying would be seen as immoral and what you ought not to do and telling the truth is what one ought to do, telling the truth is morally correct and could be made a universal law. Everyone should tell the truth however, not everyone does. To always do good, no matter the outcome. Which is why utilitarianism does not work for Kant. The second part Kant talks about never treating others as a means to an end, I would interpret this as always making sure you reward, pay or recognize a person as a person and dignify their actions. Don’t take advantage of people. Don’t make people a means to our own end.
“Don’t do to anyone else what you wouldn’t want done to you”, could be looked at as the exact same thing as “do unto other as you would have them do unto you” right? But, the bottom line is the Golden Rule is simply meant for good. I treat you with respect because that is how I would like you to treat me. If I were to say, I don’t treat you with respect because I don’t want to be treated with respect, that would be a negative thing. Who doesn’t want to be treated respectfully? That completely contradicts what the golden rule is meant for in the first place. So in that sense, Kant did not think the Categorical Imperative was simply another version of the Golden Rule.
In the video, “The Morality of Murder” by Michael Sandel, he talks about moral reasoning, consequentialist and categorical. He talks about the fat man being pushed over to stop the trolly from killing five people. Instead killing only
“Don’t do to anyone else what you wouldn’t want done to you”, could be looked at as the exact same thing as “do unto other as you would have them do unto you” right? But, the bottom line is the Golden Rule is simply meant for good. I treat you with respect because that is how I would like you to treat me. If I were to say, I don’t treat you with respect because I don’t want to be treated with respect, that would be a negative thing. Who doesn’t want to be treated respectfully? That completely contradicts what the golden rule is meant for in the first place. So in that sense, Kant did not think the Categorical Imperative was simply another version of the Golden Rule.
In the video, “The Morality of Murder” by Michael Sandel, he talks about moral reasoning, consequentialist and categorical. He talks about the fat man being pushed over to stop the trolly from killing five people. Instead killing only