Final answer:
The Golden Rule is based on personal treatment preferences and may not be universally applicable, while Kant's Categorical Imperative uses reason to guide universally applicable moral laws, sidestepping subjectivity inherent in the Golden Rule.
Step-by-step explanation:
Difference Between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative
The difference between the "Golden Rule" and Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative" lies in the application and formulation of moral laws. The Golden Rule, which is a common ethical guideline found in various religions and philosophies, basically states that one should treat others as one would like to be treated. This rule relies on the assumption that what is good for one is good for all, which can be subjective and limited to one's own perspective and experiences.
On the other hand, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a deontological principle that focuses on the universality and rationality of moral actions. Kant's primary formulation of the Categorical Imperative says: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." This emphasizes that one's actions should be guided by maxims that could reasonably be adopted by all rational beings without contradiction, regardless of personal desires or outcomes.
The main problem with the Golden Rule is its reliance on personal preferences and perspectives, which may not always be morally justified or acceptable when applied universally. In contrast, Kant's Categorical Imperative uses reason to establish moral laws that are objective and universally applicable, avoiding the subjective nature of the Golden Rule.