Kantian Gold Rule Analysis

Kantian gold rule was as defined by Shafer, “which tells you to treat others as you would like to be treated.” (Landau, 2010, p. 156). Kant as the book refers to him was someone who believed that people needed to his simple golden rule is the one way that everyone could truly as increase the well-being. While his rule was not without issues especially when you were comparing two major component of his view, the relationship between morality and rationality. According to Kant he explained his view as, “He remains perhaps the most important voice of opposition to utilitarianism, and to its claim that the ultimate point of morality is to improve well-being rather than do justice.” (Landau, 2010, p. 154). He wanted to sway people to think of morality as the process if making the right decision, however it did not always mean that the choice was the most rational. Mark
described Kant as, “These issues are important to Kant's moral thought because if freedom is present outside moral choice,” (Blitz, 2001). Kant would react to the challenge of the amoralist pretty close to how Shaffer express it, “The amorialist is someone who believes in right and wrong but doesn’t care about morality at all.” (Landau, 2010, p.
161). Someone who following the amoralist path is a person who is completed aware of if something is good and if something is bad, but when it comes to if is morally acceptable then they are willing to blur the line. Kant used the example of a serial killer who is aware of what is right or wrong but have no issues with that fact that their actions are morally wrong (Landau, 2010, p. 161). While DiCenso was comparing Kant to Freud he has an interesting view, “Kant establishes an intrinsic connection between ethics and autonomy, understood as freely following the categorical imperative without consideration of external circumstances.” (DiCenso, 2007, p. 167). The external circumstances would be similar the serial killer example that was talked about early, because someone could full understand what it is they are doing, but in some cases an external circumstance is what will drive the
difference.
Kant views are plausible to a point, I do believe that his golden rule is something that we should all try to live however, this will never the case. People are always going to be wrapped up in what is good for them, that they would not like it if they were treated how they treat others. According to Shafer Kant believed, “we can’t determine whether an act is right or wrong until we know its maxim.” (Landau, 2010, p. 167). One would gather that Kant was trying to say that you cannot always differ right from wrong until after the act has been completed, only then could you really comprehend your actions. According to John Teehan he explained that, “Kant is clearly willing to sacrifice human happiness in this life to the demands of duty..,” (Teehan, 2003, p. 54). Clearly Kant was willing to accept that although we cannot always make to moral choice but try to ensure you are making a rational one.