Kant felt that he ought to act in a certain way. He was aware of the difference between something being ‘matter of fact’, and something being regarded as an obligation or duty. He concluded that what is good and what is bad should begin with good will and that the highest form of good is goodwill. To have a good will is to do ones duty. To do ones duty is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative helps us to determine which actions are obligatory and which are forbidden. It tells us what we ought to do, "All in imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically… If the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; but if the action is represented as a good in itself…then the imperative is categorical."
Kant does not specifically provide us with a set of rules or laws that we should follow, like the 10 commandments for example, but instead, if a law can be universalised, then it is morally acceptable. Laws that become contradictory, when they're universalised, must be rejected as immoral. This is why we have to be selective when choosing our universal moral laws. This theory puts together a powerful set of moral principles.
b) Assess critically Kant’s claims about the Categorical Imperative (17 marks)
Kant believes that one of the most important features of the categorical imperative is its universalisability, that my maxim should become a universal law.
Thus we recognise that there are moral dilemmas that may be similar but different. Are all killings the same? Some can be justified, others cannot. Is this a weakness in Kant's theory? Kant would say that it is dependant on the reason, not the outcome and for that reason; he is not categorising all killings as the same moral problem.
Humans should not be treated as means to an end; they should be treated as ends in themselves. Humans are the highest point of creation and therefore need to be treated uniquely. Unlike utilitarianism, using the Categorical Imperative, you cannot sacrifice one for the greater good of the greater number. Happiness should only be sought if it doesn't prevent another's happiness. But difficult decisions do have to be made, and Kant's approach is not best suited to deciding upon the answers to some questions. If we were going to war, and by bombing one small village, we would bring the war to an end, Kant would not agree with this as it is sacrificing someone's happiness for the happiness of others.
Kant's belief that we have immortal souls, leads us to the fact that morality directs us to God. However, many Christians would question Kant's place for God, and as the categorical imperative is supposed to apply to everyone, is this something we can overlook as just a matter of religious belief? Kant says that laws have to be of the highest good, containing something that is good within themselves. They have to be universally and unconditionally binding. Kant says that, "It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will." To be good, you have to have a good will.
Due to all of these aspects, Kant feels that it is a sense of duty that drives humans to do morally good actions, and avoid those that will be morally bad. His ethics appear to be only a tool that leads us to morality. By not providing us with any rules or laws, it could be hard to see which moral rules can and cannot be universalised.
When Kant applies the categorical imperative to this situation he discovers that it leads to a contradiction, for if breaking promises were to become universal then no person would ever agree to a promise and promises would disappear. Kant links rationality with morality, and sees contradictory behaviour as immoral. Through this you could argue that Kant never asserts the connection between rationality and morality, but you can also dismiss this and point out that Kant clearly explains how morality must be based upon reason and not upon desires.
Kant also argued that the categorical imperative that allows one to determine what actually is moral is known as a priori, meaning that you don't obtain morals through observations, but by only reason. And in order to gain a full overview, he should look at the consequences too, otherwise you are unable to get a complete picture of the situation.
This theory could encourage someone to become selfish and choose a duty that benefits them in the long run.
If you don't consider obtaining morals through both observation and reasoning, you are therefore unlikely to recognise what is right and wrong. The categorical imperative sometimes seems to give false negatives in terms of what is permitted behaviour. For example, I cannot will that everyone in the world should eat in my favourite restaurant. Perhaps this sort of problem can be avoided by being careful in the use of relative terms like my. In this case, it is possible to will that everyone should eat in their favourite restaurant.
The real flaw in this argument is that it doesn’t allow emotional free will. This strikes me as a fundamental dilemma, which doesn’t make the argument appeal to me. I also think that we shouldn’t dismiss individuals for the sake of helping the majority.
