This idea is based on the significance of the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is an action that’s purpose is to achieve a goal or desire, and Kant suggested that we should not base on morality on this. An example of a hypothetical imperative is to give a present to someone, only so that you receive one in return. In contrast, Kant suggested that moral actions should be based on categorical imperatives; to be give presents regardless of your own wants and feelings. It is therefore our duty to act without selfishness with out any specific goals or aims. We do our duty because it is our duty- not for any other reason.
This poses a problem to many philosophers, as the idea is difficult to carry out. Kant answered this dilemma by creating a maxim, to help us see only ‘good will’, not our own desires. This is the universal principle of reason, to ‘act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ Otherwise known as ‘universability’, this means that when making a moral decision, for example contemplating stealing, we must ask ourselves if our actions should be applied to everyone in the same situation.
Kant’s idea of duty seems to be the foundation for most of his ethical ideas and rules. It has also been the inspiration for other philosophers. This is because it provides an excellent base for morality, as it considers the individual, though also provides a sense of moral obligation that makes you contemplate your actions. Although criticised for being too optimistic by some, if all people followed his theories as he suggested, the world would benefit considerably.
How satisfactory is Kant’s theory for practical purpose.
A main criticism of Kant is that it is far too optimistic. This can be attributed to many factors, but mainly that Kant himself had an unrealistic positive outlook on the world. This is why his theories are often difficult to apply to practical situations. Kant’s maxim does have a certain advantage in practical situations. It provides a test, which people can work out themselves- they do not have to look at physics or God to decide on morally right actions. Apart from this plus, it is difficult to find any other examples of Kant’s theory being useful to apply to practical situations.
An example of this is Kant’s belief that all humans have a sense of moral obligation. This is not necessarily true, many people do not think about the morality of their actions, or feel that they have to. Kant also suggested that our moral actions should be categorical imperatives not hypothetical ones. But if you take away desire and consequence from an ethical decision, it does not encourage people to act morally at all. Kant used the example of a shopkeeper to separate the idea of good behaviour and good will. A shopkeeper may be kind and friendly to you, but if he does this in order to make a profit it does not show good will, and is therefore not morally right. Yet, if the shopkeeper did not make any effort, and gave an honest but rude service, he would not make any profit at all. This shows how Kant’s theory is not satisfactory for practical purposes, as it is often hard to always act morally right.
Kant’s ethical theory can be defined as deontological. This means looking at the morality of an action itself, rather than considering the consequences. It can be difficult to apply this concept to practical situations. In one essay, Kant said that it would be wrong to lie, even to a murderer who has come to kill an innocent person you are hiding in your home. This obviously shows Kant’s principle of universal law as impractical. It also contradicts with Kant’s idea that ‘humans are ends in themselves’- as shouldn’t you do everything possible to save the person’s life?
Another example is if you had to break a promise to a friend to provide evidence for the police, you could not do so, as the action of breaking a promise would be wrong. This critique can be developed further, by suggesting that the police would not necessarily consider the promise, only the consequence that you are holding information from them; which is often seen as a crime itself. This also provides a useful example of how Kant’s sense of duty can contradict itself; it is not morally right to break a promise, or break the law.
The idea of universalisability and the categorical imperative can also be exploited to become selfish- even though this is what Kant’s ideas are trying to avoid. For example, the categorical imperative could be applied to stealing. You could say that stealing is wrong; as if everyone stole it would be dangerous and impractical. However, if I was poor and starving and needed to steal to eat, I could excuse myself as I could see my actions as right, as I need to steal in order to survive. Didn’t Kant say that humans are of value and should be respected, especially above objects?
Kant also suggested that if something cannot be universalised, it cannot be right. How far can this rule apply in practical situations? Kant said the principle of universalisability applies to people in the same situation as you. Therefore, stealing when you are starving can be seen as morally right; as you may believe it is acceptable for everyone who is starving to steal. What are the boundaries to this rule though? Is anyone ever in the same situation? A person could say that it is fine for 44 year old, divorced and alcoholic homeless men to steal to survive, but not for anyone else. The theory then begins to seem illogical, as the principle becomes relative, rather than absolute. Kant never explored these ideas.
In conclusion, it seems as though Kant’s ethical theory is awkward to apply to practical situations, as the faults in Kant’s work only makes moral choices more complex. It can be said though, that Kant’s theory can help to guide our practical ethical decisions, by making us consider the morality of our actions- as long as we do not follow his rules to closely.
