Tuesday, June 24, 2025

1197: Golden Rule vs Categorical Imperative

 What is the difference between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative? They are both generalizing statements that should help us to check the morality of our actions.

  

At first glance, they might look the same. They are both foundational ethical principles, but they differ significantly in their approach, basis, and implications. 

   

We all know the Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It has various formulations, 

  

both positive, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  and negative,  "Do not do to others what you would not like done to yourselves".

   

It is primarily based on empathy, reciprocity, and personal desires and preferences. It asks individuals to put themselves in another's shoes and consider their own feelings as a guide for action.

   

The Golden Rule can be easily subjective because what one person desires for themselves might not be what another person desires, or what is universally right.

   

I was thinking. Suppose I am a member of political party A and really hate those who belong to political party B. I'd love to feel their hate, so that I have a good reason to beat them up.

   

I don't mind if they try to do the same to me, because I am convinced that I will be victorious in any battle B people. 

   

I'd love them to hate me, like I hate them, is the Golden Thought here. The problem, however, is that the members of B just want a reasonable debate about the political issues.

  

Suppose you like inflicting pain on yourself. The Golden Rule would justify that you may hurt others and they may hurt you, although those others actually hate to hurt anybody.

   

Kant tries to remove this subjective part of the moral rule. The Categorical Imperative, the central concept in Kant's deontological ethics, 

  

is a rule of conduct that is unconditional or absolute for all rational human beings, the validity of which does not depend on any desire or end.

   

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This means that one's actions should be based on principles that could be applied to everyone without contradiction.

  

Such a principle is the product of rational thinking, not of personal preferences. Suppose you say: I am ok with lying. I don't mind if others ly to me. Make it a universal law: lying is OK.

  

But rationally, to be able to have a good conversation or reliable scientific knowledge, my highest moral standard is, of course, the truth. And here we run into a contradiction, so lying is immoral.

    

Thus, the Categorical Imperative strives for objectivity. It's not about what you would want, but what could rationally be willed as a universal law for everyone.

   

If life has a meaning, then our morally worthy actions are motivated by duty, acting out of respect for the moral law itself, or respect for the truth, not out of inclination, self-interest, or even empathy alone.

   

Two foundational ethical principles. Is there a choice?

   

Thank you for your attention again..... the floor is yours.

  

 Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm
Rens Bod:  Waarom ben ik hier? (2024)
Carlo Cipolla: The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity (1976)


TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  


  1 - 100 Philosophers                                              9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                              10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                               10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                              29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

25 - Historical Materialism                                       5 Oct 2023    /  1088

26 - The Bonobo and the Atheist                             9 Jan 2024    /  1102

27 - Artificial Intelligence                                          9 Feb 2024    /  1108

28 - Why Am I Here                                                 6 Sept 2024   /  1139

 

The Discussion


 

[13:14] Max Chatnoir: Thanks, Herman.

[13:14] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): what is the procedure for intervening please?

[13:14] herman Bergson: What do you mean...?

[13:14] herman Bergson: Feel free to speak

[13:15] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): ok, I wonder what is truth, and if absolute truth exists

[13:15] Stranger Nightfire: there is that situation where say a masochist might want me to hurt them but I would not want to be hurt and do not wish to hurt them

[13:15] herman Bergson: YEs...the remark that always  comes up...

[13:15] Stranger Nightfire: also as to truth, some people seem to really want to be ied to

[13:15] herman Bergson: but think about it....

[13:15] Stranger Nightfire: lied to

[13:16] herman Bergson: what do you want to be this observation...the truth and nothing but the truth?

[13:16] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): without some lying our society could not work

[13:16] herman Bergson: Indeed John....

[13:16] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): we should condemn advertising itself

[13:16] herman Bergson: But  that is the problem with Kant's idea....

[13:17] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): Children would be explosed to traumatic truths etc. etc.

[13:17] herman Bergson: it is rational and theoretical, not social behavior or psychology

[13:17] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): oh, like in an ideal reality

[13:17] Max Chatnoir: The categorical imperative seems to be more socially functional, but how are those principles arrived at?

[13:18] herman Bergson: That is the point...we are not one dimensional, but social animals with a tool called rationality, which we sometimes use

[13:18] herman Bergson: Yes Max,

[13:19] herman Bergson: for Kant you arrive at these principles by rational reasoning, what he called practical reason.

[13:20] herman Bergson: One aspect of it is that we can test the strength of our reasoning by using logic and proof that the principle does not imply a contradiction for instance

[13:21] Stranger Nightfire: I have a very strong feeling about the importance of telling the truth, but it does come down to if the Gestapo shows up a the door should you be honest with them when they ask if you know where any jews are hiding?

[13:21] herman Bergson: which means that something could be true and false at the same time

[13:22] herman Bergson: That is the classic problem with the rigidity of the categorical imperative, Stranger

[13:22] herman Bergson: I don't know how to solve it unless you move to casuistics....logic withing a closed context

[13:23] herman Bergson: kind of situationalism in ethics

[13:23] herman Bergson: Which we use pretty often by the way....sometimes we have to ly

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess so indeed

[13:24] herman Bergson: I agree with John...without lying we could not function

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sometimes it might be needed

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:24] herman Bergson: But you have lies in all forms and shapes

[13:24] Max Chatnoir: Well, you sometimes have warring principles.  Generally tell the truth, unless doing so leads to some kind of damage.

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aha

[13:25] herman Bergson: so maybe we should develop an ethics of morally justief lying

[13:25] herman Bergson: Well, Max...take the principle Thou shall not kill...

[13:26] herman Bergson: Same story...

[13:26] herman Bergson: Maybe God invented that idea, but homo sapiens invented the word UNLESS

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and as I often state: dont be evil

[13:26] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): maybe there is not truth and falsehood, but shades of truth

[13:27] herman Bergson: How many shades John, 50 ? :-)

[13:27] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): Hmm, maybe way more

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):

[13:27] herman Bergson: But yes as I already said...an ethics of morally justified lying....maybe we should have that

[13:28] Max Chatnoir: Like Santa Claus?

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybee that

[13:28] John H Cassio (sticaatsi): like lying to the enemy in war

[13:28] herman Bergson: Santa is the big ly indeed Max :-))

[13:28] herman Bergson: yes

[13:29] herman Bergson: Misleading the enemy to save lives

[13:29] Max Chatnoir: I'm not sure there are shades of truth, but there may be different consequences of truth being known.

[13:29] herman Bergson: This leads to an interesting analysis of the concept of lyibg and its ethics.....

[13:30] herman Bergson: Interesting Max....

[13:30] herman Bergson: yes

[13:30] herman Bergson: Which we already address a little while discussing consequentialism

[13:31] herman Bergson: That is the fate of philosophy.....

[13:32] herman Bergson: There is always some argument or counter example....we never get the circle closed

[13:33] herman Bergson: I suggest we put our hope on the next lecture then

[13:33] herman Bergson: Unless you still have a remark  or something to say...thank you all again...

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to lie or not to lie thats the (moral) question

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and as said there are different ones

[13:34] herman Bergson: Unless that is a lie Bejiita

[13:34] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):

  

No comments:

Post a Comment