Kantian Moral Law Vs Golden Rule

In this paper I will examine the practicality and applicability of Kantian moral law in comparison to the golden rule. The main focus will be with on categorical imperatives, hypothetical imperatives, duty, and good will when it comes to Kantian moral law. Then, with the golden rule the focus will be on the whole maxim, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, since it is quite simple. To help with the analysis of these two topics the examples of the death penalty and charity will be employed. I will use them to demonstrate the differences and similarities between the two ideas. My main argument is that while the Kantian moral law is obviously of a higher ethical standard than that of the golden rule it is not realistic or practical.
This is due to Kantian moral law not taking into account that oftentimes people make decisions to act in certain ways as a result of their emotional state. It can be quite difficult to think of the impact of your actions were they willed universally if you are overwhelmed with emotions. However, this does not discount the fact that I agree with the principles that Kantian moral law represent. For at the end of the day when you put the principles of the golden rule side by side with those of Kantian moral law a disproportionate number of faults are found in the golden rule. The main one being it is far too easy to corrupt it and use it as justification for immoral actions.