"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Was Immanuel Kant's Categorical (ie absolute) Imperative just a fancy way of coming around to the Golden Rule, as Bird Dog suggested the other day?
Kant's ethics fall in the category of deontologogical (ie duty-centered) absolutism: he said that one should not lie even to save a life (but I doubt that he ever found himself in that situation).
To my simple mind, teleological (outcome-based) ethics, like Utilitarianism, are not ethics or morals at all: our daily actions need to be teleological most of the time, but that is about practical judgement - not morality. As a foundation for a moral code, teleological ethics are insidious and dangerous.
Like most people, my moral codes are not carefully thought through. They are mostly inherited from a long line of Yankee Puritans, and Christianity-based. Thus far, they have kept me out of the clink, but have not protected me from doing my share of stupid, cruel, or selfish things. Like most people, I only focus on morals when presented with a moral dilemma that comes up on the radar, because the rest of the time I am on moral autopilot. I guess I'd have to say that my morality is neither deontological nor teleological, but mystical as G.K. Chesterton would say (Ten Commandments, The Great Commandment, etc) in its origins, with a dose of my personal obsessionalism on top.
Still, it's an interesting thought experiment to spend a day thinking about how - or whether - my daily decisions might be different if I consciously and deliberately pretend to adopt a different moral foundation.
Image: Immanuel Kant
Dr. Bliss comment: You are right that one's morality is not arrived at by deliberate thought. Guilt and morality are quasi-internalized during youth. After that, it's all about just learning the rules, laws, and socio-cultural expectations to avoid a messy life. Maybe I will post a draft of a piece I once wrote on the subject for a lay audience.
