They both seem very similar. They both talk about treating people right and following a set of morals. So, what is the difference between them? Is it because the Golden Rule only applies to people and Categorical Imperative applies to everything?
They both seem very similar. They both talk about treating people right and following a set of morals. So, what is the difference between them? Is it because the Golden Rule only applies to people and Categorical Imperative applies to everything?
Categorical Imperative was created by Kant as an elaboration of the Golden Rule (and earlier moral established by Aristotle).
Golden Rule is simply a law: do unto others what they would do to you.
Categorical imperative provides the reasoning for why the moral world is structured the way Kant outlines in his second critique.
I wrote a poem on a leaf and it blew away...
Well,..., there were a lot more imperatives in Kant's arguments and they were all categorical. But it is true that Kant was an insane attempt to save Aristotle.Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
Last edited by cafolini; 04-05-2012 at 03:19 PM.
The Golden Rule refers (and confines) to your own actions.
The Categorical Imperative exceeds the Golden Rule with his demand to create a general law (maxim) out of ones actions (on the basis of moral thinking).
This is basically the difference. The Golden Rule involves reciprocation, in that you are doing good because you would expect that others do good towards you as well. The categorical imperative states that what makes an action moral is whether the action can be universalized in every circumstance towards every agent. If it cannot, then you contradict yourself by willing the action in the first place. The Golden Rule has good will as its foundation, whereas to infringe the categorical imperative, according to Kant, is an infringement of reason itself.
Not all imperatives are categorical ones. There are hypothetical imperatives that strictly involve conditional relationships (e.g. to drink water, you must fill your cup). You cannot will that drinking water from a cup be universalized, so it is hypothetical. Only relationships involving things that are deemed to be good in themselves, regardless of one's personal goals, come under the scope of categorical imperatives.
Plus, how is Kant's morality implicated to be an extension of Aristotle's? Aristotle held virtue as the prime object of morality, whereas Kant claimed the only moral actions are those done out of pure duty to reason.
Last edited by Shevek; 04-12-2012 at 02:54 AM.
Your Kant is spot on but your Aristoteles is pas exactement. Eudaimonia is the objective of either ethics or political science for Aristotle.
What cafolini says makes no sense, but that's cafolini for you. To be honest it seems like Kant, at least in terms of his ethics, was an attempt to ground Christian values in reason (if you've read the first critique, you know the stunts Kant will pull to 'make things fit,' mostly into his desire for organization in that instance).
J
I think Jack of Hearts is leaning towards correctness. As he says, Aristotle's ethics aims at Eudaimonia ("happiness") Try reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle.
That's *almost* correct, on my reading. But the ultimate aim, for Aristotle, was happiness (eudaimonia) - the virtues were the activities to get you there. The stoics were more into "raw" virtue... (although they did say that pursuing virtue would result in joy!)
Happy lot the ancients... Someone invent a time machine... PLEASE....
Kant is Aristotlean in that he thought the end of ethics consisted in the'highest good' by which he meant the perfect unity of happiness and virtue. (Living according to the categorical imperative could be described as excellent activity in Aristotle's idiom) Kant postulated both God and the immortality of the soul as guarantors of this 'highest good' given that this universe comes up short in providing it.
What both the golden rule and Kant's imperative do have in common is various attempts have been made to debunk them. I have read it suggested, for example that the maxim "I shall smother infants who keep me awake at night by crying" is not ruled out by Kant's principle. It seems intuitively correct that on some level morality is universal. But perhaps attempts at universalizing ethics may fall down precisely because abstract thinking does not sit well with the muddy waters of concrete reality.
This reply shows a horrific misunderstanding of Kant.
J
At first glance/impression that both are rules and so they both have that imperative do this/do tone to them. Dictatoship of rules is the bottom line so in this sense they are both exactly the same.
Golden Rule is suggesting the concept of idealism of behaving /following as a rule of thumb.
and
categorical imperative is saying you will do it no matter what, that you have not choice or there are/will be consequences to it.
I have never heard of Kant and so purely based on the words.
Last edited by cacian; 05-01-2012 at 04:40 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
[QUOTE=Jack of Hearts;1136834]This reply shows a horrific misunderstanding of Kant.
Would have been helpful if you said how and I would have felt able to respond with more than than simply asking how...?
Ah. In The Metaphysics of Morals Kant outlines all of this, but in short:
1. Happiness is no pre-requisite for Kant's 'highest good', which is adherence to the moral law. You can be perfectly miserable but still be doing your duty and that's ok for Kantian Ethics and realizing the highest good.
2. Kant had no 'guarantee for heaven,' but rather states that it is rational that we hope for a next life. Because this life is imperfect. Because in this life we are led astray from deontology and there's no person who experiences perfect happiness.
3. The categorical imperative has no comparison in Aristotelian ethics. These two systems are comparable in that they both regard only the act and the not the consequences of morality, but eudaimonia is about realizing human goodness in the this life. This contains human flourishing, happiness and even material goods for Aristotle. For Kant, none of this matters, only fulfilling one's moral duty, being in harmony with reason/the universe a la stoicism (because Kant's moral system is derived from reason, like Kant's natural law, like everything else Kant does), and not undermining one's own agency or the agency of others.
J
Last edited by Jack of Hearts; 05-12-2012 at 02:06 AM.
[QUOTE=Jack of Hearts;1139756]Ah. In The Metaphysics of Morals Kant outlines all of this, but in short:
1. Happiness is no pre-requisite for Kant's 'highest good', which is adherence to the moral law. You can be perfectly miserable but still be doing your duty and that's ok for Kantian Ethics and realizing the highest good.
2. Kant had no 'guarantee for heaven,' but rather states that it is rational that we hope for a next life. Because this life is imperfect. Because in this life we are led astray from deontology and there's no person who experiences perfect happiness.
3. The categorical imperative has no comparison in Aristotelian ethics. These two systems are comparable in that they both regard only the act and the not the consequences of morality, but eudaimonia is about realizing human goodness in the this life. This contains human flourishing, happiness and even material goods for Aristotle. For Kant, none of this matters, only fulfilling one's moral duty, being in harmony with reason/the universe a la stoicism (because Kant's moral system is derived from reason, like Kant's natural law, like everything else Kant does), and not undermining one's own agency or the agency of others.
Many years ago in what seems like a former life I actually read this text. According to my Oxford companion to Philosophy however what you said about the 'highest good' is just wrong. You are right that we can act out of duty to the moral law and be miserable but that is why Kant postulates immortal life- which would guarantee happiness
In as much as happiness is part of Kant's thinking about ethics there is a comparison with Aristotle. That is all I wanted to say really. But, also, one can I suppose think of acting out of duty to the moral law as a (part) expression of human flourishing - living excellently - if one is prepared to blur the vocabularies of the two different thinkers
You're right in a limited way.Kant's "highest good" is happiness commensurate with a person's moral worthiness. But the agent must perform the action because it is moral (duty driven), not because it makes him worthy (and therefore brings him happiness).
But that "postulation" of immortality is dubious at best. Anybody not intimately familiar with Kant would make the mistake of thinking that you meant Kant actually claims there is a heaven or a soul or a god (supreme being of nature). He does not (in fact he debunks three separate proofs for god in the first Critique and we end up at this idea of moral faith). He says we have rational grounds for behaving as though there is- ie, hoping that there is - because morality (as Kant has presented it) in itself cannot realize happiness in the natural world.
And your last bit about Kant and Aristotle is no good in this reader's opinion. They are literally comparable in the most superficial way; when translated, they both feature the english word 'happiness.' For Kant, it's something morality makes you worthy of and you hope that god gives you in the next life. For Aristotle, it's human excellence. Moral excellence for Kant is not necessarily happiness, it is being worthy of happiness.
And even then, these are just translated terms that mean two very different things in both their respective languages AND their philosophical context.
J
Last edited by Jack of Hearts; 05-24-2012 at 06:39 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
