What's the difference between Kant's categorical imperative and the Golden Rule?

Answer 1

Golden Rule implies that we do good because it also benefits oneself given that everyone follows the Golden Rule. Golden rule also implies that morality is a social construct over time that is good for individuals and society to follow.

Categorical imperative is very different from these two notions.

Categorical imperative mandates action not because it benefits us nor because it is for greater good, but because it just is so. It is not our desire, it is not our hedonistic nature, but it is the honestly imagined maxim that we follow and that mandates morally right action. To Kant, this maxim is God.
One thing to keep in mind is that Kant's ethics is in direct contradiction with consequentialism.

For Kant, you cannot act as a mean to do greater good later on, but you always have to act what is good at that moment.
Say your kids are starving at home. You would like to steal a loaf of bread to feed your children. We all know that feeding your starving children is a good thing, but because it involves stealing as a mean to do good, this action is not justified.

Answer 2

Kant Golden Rule

Answer 3

KAnt's categorical imperative states that 'Always act in such a way that the maxim determining your conduct might well become a universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action'. In here, there is a law embedded in the human reason itself which is so basic and fundamental that it directs all moral activitity. It demands that everyone act at all times as though he were the ruling monarch of the universe and the prnciple of his action would auomatically become the principle of the action of everyone. Here, the fundamental worth of an individual is affirmed. Our actions should not be such as to use individuals as means for our ends, but rather to serve others as ends in themselves.

The golden rule, on the other hand requires both collaboration of at least two individuals in a cause and effect basis. It basically tells us to perform such an action so that in return, it can also be done to us the way we performed the action. It is not a voluntary action in such a manner that we are expecting something(an end) in return for ourselves, and not for the other individual.. This is what differentiates this rule from the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative simply asks us to aim for an end not for our own individual good, but for universal good, though the attainment of such an end is an individual effort by principle by becoming a role model e.g. as if to be followed by others for their own good..

Answer 4

Kant's imperative appeals to the higher authority of "Universal Good" which although is more mystical than the Golden Rule, it is ironically also more practical.

Answer 5

If I remember correctly, Kant imperative refines the sentiment of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Kant argues that what you would want to have done unto you might not be what another person wants done unto them.

In some cases you must make a judgement of what would be good for (or desired by) another individual, and should behave in such a way as to bring that about.

I've heard Kant's imperative described as

"Don unto others Their Good".