The golden rule of ethics - to act in relation to neighbors as we would like them to act in relation to us, is often mistakenly identified with the postulate of Immanuel Kant. Erroneous, because the German philosopher did not write about this. Kant's categorical imperative is something that expresses a moral law, an unconditional "must." It is independent of whether we want to do something or not.
Ethics of Kant - the categorical imperative and the concept of maxims
There are two types of imperatives: in addition to the categorical, there is also a hypothetical, or conditional. It is defined as a conditional form of command, in which case the obligatory nature of an action has the basis that this action itself is desirable (or may be). The conditional imperative draws attention to the content, and the value of an act or action here is determined by what it is done for.
In contrast, Kant's categorical imperative is something indispensable in itself, a criterion by which one can determine the morality of actions. The wording of it by the author himself is as follows: a person must act so that his actions, his actions can play the role of an example for others, that is, he can only do what he would agree with if everyone around him did it.
I. Kant defined the maxim as a certain judgment that connects the goals of a person and his actions. These are subjective views on how to behave, not even so much views as principles, beliefs. Kant's categorical imperative suggests that you should have only those views that suit us if they become convictions for everyone who surrounds us, for society in general. At the same time, the concrete situation does not play any role - everything that corresponds to the imperative is moral.
What Kant offers is an offer to the mind, and not to the senses, the mind can make a similar assessment of its actions, the heart is not capable of this. Although a person’s knowledge of the world begins with empirical, that is, with sensory sensations, it is incomplete. Rather, in the matter of knowing nature, this method is good enough. But to judge the moral, you need something else. Since, according to the philosopher, the laws of morality cannot be derived on the basis of personal experience.
Therefore, it seems impossible to create scientific knowledge about morality and law as it happens in the natural sciences. From here - get the necessary, using the mind as a source of judgment.
Freedom and morality
A truly free one who is guided by certain norms puts certain rules above temporary circumstances. A highly moral person cannot proceed in his actions from any conditional rules that change from situation to situation. Such a person should measure his actions and take them, based on an unconditional moral law created by the mind itself, not limiting, but giving freedom. Kant's categorical imperative is such an unconditional law. He does not talk about what to do in a particular situation. There is only a general idea, the concept of a duty to humanity, but a person has complete moral freedom to do as he pleases - the only thing that is "as he pleases" should be as much as possible consistent with moral law.
For a philosopher, there is no compulsion or violence in following an imperative. Morality is something that has at its core internal motives of a person, his understanding of his duty, including to society. Therefore, the categorical imperative of Kant only provides the core, while offering the individual freedom. Including freedom from religion, and from any stereotypes in relation to society, because absolutely any person can apply this rule in his life.
