Explain Kant's Categorical Imperative.

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Immanuel Kant

Laura Barrett

Explain Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative is another way to solve moral problems. Kant was interested that there was an interaction between sense perception and human understanding.

According to Kant, the morally good man is the man of good will, and that the man of good will is the man who does his duty. An action, therefore only has moral worth if it done from duty. Duty, then, is a consequence of objective or formal necessity, but its representation by a will provides subjective incentive and reflects, or perhaps yields, the material imperative. Kant still hasn’t told us where our duty lies.

On the other hand Kant rejected the idea that the moral worth of an action lies in the results/consequences. This theory is teleological. In addition Kant must give a deontological theory, the moral worth of an action lies in its obedience to a particular rule or principle regardless of inclinations, self-interest, or consequences. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise. But in such a case, Kant argues, the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or "maxim," the general commitment to act in this way because it is one's duty. So he concludes "Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law."

The categorical imperative is a powerful set of moral principles that prohibit acts that would be commonly considered wrong such as theft, murder, fraud or violence. The set of rules apply to everyone and that command respect for human life. It tells us what we “ought” to do;

“All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically…if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetically; but if the action is represented as good in itself…then the imperative is categorical.” Kant (1797)

Kant argued that morality is prescriptive as it prescribes moral behaviour. If you are aware of a moral requirement, the awareness is a reason for doing something. Moral statements are categorical in that they prescribe actions irrespective of the result.

Kant emphases that people make free choices. In addition to this, his theory is respect for others when he ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Kant emphases that people make free choices. In addition to this, his theory is respect for others when he reforms the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”

A categorical imperative is different from a hypothetical imperative, which doest prescribe an action, for example if I want to loose weight, I ought to go on a diet. If you want a sandwich, open the fridge. These imperatives are not moral. Kant’s perception of moral imperatives were categorical, I “ought” to do something. For example, “I ought to respect my parents” This makes no references to desires or needs.

There are three principles of the categorical imperative; the universal law.

“There is only one categorical imperative. It is an act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant (1785)

The categorical imperative is “Do not act on any principle that cannot be universalised.” If an action is right for someone, it is right for everyone. An example of this is, “Lying is wrong for everyone but if a man came to the door and asked if your mother was upstairs as he was going to kill her, your reaction would be to say no your mother isn’t there. This is an deontological theory as it its quite possible that, in obeying these rules, you do not promote the greatest possible balance of good over evil.

Kant argues that to allow exceptions would harm someone and have consequences on society. The example above would have saved the mother if the person lied. Kant argued that a lie always harms someone, if not the liar then mankind generally, because it contravenes the source of law. If everyone were to act in this way, society would become intolerable.

The second principle of Kant’s is to treat humans as ends in themselves.

“So act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, nearly merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Kant (1785)

By this Kant means, you can never treat people as means to an end. You can never use human beings for another purpose, to exploit them. Additionally he argued that we have a duty to develop our own perfection i.e. developing our moral abilities. We also have a “duty” to seek the happiness of others, as ling as that is within the law and allows the freedom of others. For example, we shouldn’t promote one-person happiness if that happiness prevents another person happiness.

The third principle of Kant’s categorical imperative is to act as if you live in the Kingdom of ends.

“So act as if you were through your maxim a law making member of a kingdom of ends.”

Kant (1797)

By this Kant expresses that the moral statements to be such that you act as if you, and everyone else were treating each other as ends. You can’t act on a rule that presumes that others don’t treat people as ends. You can’t create a maxim such as “I may steal as all others steal.” If this were carried out, society today would become unbearable.

The Categorical imperative is morally unacceptable. Discuss!

There are a number of moral dilemmas in today’s world, however, the most applicable and useful for our purpose it could be argued.

Suppose that you are suffering from a terminal illness, you may very well wish that anyone, should they find themselves in the same situation, should be able to end their own lives.

One may hold the view that it is wrong for a healthy person to commit suicide, but that someone who is terminally ill and in great pain should in fact be able to do so. This shows that even after following Kant’s theory it is still unclear as to whether one should rule suicide out entirely.

Looking at Kant’s theory one may well argue that if euthanasia on a universal scale is unacceptable, then it is morally wrong in each case. However, to say that everyone should be free to choose this option is not to make it a universal law, just a universal option, which is a very different thing.

What Kant is saying then, is that he believes that human life should only be treated as an end in itself and never as a means to an end. Kant argues that suicide is using human life as a means to end the suffering that a person may be enduring. Therefore, Kant argues that suicide cannot be morally justified.

Conversely, in obeying Kant’s law then the man of good is an implement to his reason in a moral matter and what he does is what every reasonable man would do in a similar circumstance. For example “I may steal as all others steal.” If this were carried out, society today would become unbearable. Another example could be that if you borrow money of a friend and you promise faithfully to pay it back with no intention of paying it back contradicts the laws of nature because of nature. This is because if we don’t honour our promises, no one would trust each other. Furthermore if this theory were carried out it would stop people seeking self-interest.

In conclusion, when trying to apply Kant’s theory and others like it one must ask if it is possible to give a general rule to each and every individual act or if it is necessary to know the particular purpose and context of each act before one decides its rightness or wrongness. Kant’s perception skews the person's thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on "good" whether virtuous or not. But as I pointed out before, if the theory were carried out it would stop people seeking self-interest.