Editing Golden Rule (section)

===Differences in situations===
[[Immanuel Kant]] famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.<ref name="Kant">Kant, Immanuel ''Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals'', footnote 12. Cambridge University Press (28 April 1998). {{ISBN|978-0-521-62695-8}}</ref> On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the ''"similarity"''<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Alston |editor1-first=William P. |editor2-last=Brandt |editor2-first=Richard B. |title=The Problems of Philosophy |date=1978 |publisher=Allyn and Bacon |location=Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto |isbn=978-0205061105 |page=139}}</ref> between the Golden Rule and Kant's ''[[Categorical imperative|Categorical Imperative]]'', introduced in ''[[Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals]]'' ([[Categorical imperative#The Golden Rule|See discussion at this link]]).

This was perhaps a well-known objection, as Leibniz actually responded to it long before Kant made it, suggesting that the judge should put himself in the place, not merely of the criminal, but of all affected persons and then judging each option (to inflict punishment, or release the criminal, etc.) by whether there was a “greater good in which this lesser evil was included.”<ref>{{cite book |author=Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. |chapter=Reflections on the Common Concept of Justice |date=1989 |orig-date=1702 |title=Philosophical Papers and Letters. |editor=Leroy E. Loemker. |publisher=Kluwer |location=Boston |page=568}}</ref>