Frequently the perceived familiarity between Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule is mentioned. However there is an important distinction to be made between the two. The Golden Rule states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Kant's Categorical Imperative contends, "We should act according to the maxim that we would wish that all individuals would act according to when confronted by a moral dilemma."
Two important qualities of the Golden Rule emerge after examination. First the Golden Rule is based upon what an individual wants. Second, the Rule is based upon an individuals desire for self-protection. Kant's Categorical Imperative is not concerned with either of these concerns.
Kant based his Categorical Imperative upon "reason" or "human rationality" not "want" or "human will" or "desire." Kant, as previously stated, concluded that there is an inherent risk when one establishes morality upon human volition. Therefore, Kant attempted to base morality upon something much more profound and universal than emotion or will. He founded morality in human reason.
In contradistinction to the Golden Rule's emphasis upon a desire for self-protection, Kant's categorical imperative has no concern for the self or for self-protection. The Categorical Imperative is based exclusively upon "good will" and a sense of duty to do that which is right.
Therefore the distinction between the Golden Imperative and Kant's Categorical Imperative is subtle yet highly significant.
