There are three main principles in categorical imperatives. The first basic principle of morality is: ‘let the law be the sole ground or motive of thy will’ kant believed that the law had the ability of inspiring respect through reasons of universality and necessity and that people’s actions were sometimes determined by respect for the law and without regard to the consequences of the actions prescribed.
The ‘universal law’ ‘Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ The main idea of this and the categorical imperative is to not act on any decisions that cannot be universalised and applied to every situation. One must think that if an action is right for me than the action is right for everyone, i.e., I believe it is right to care for children, therefore it is right for everyone. However if it is something like, I cannot afford to feed my family and the children are starving so I will steal to feed them, than that cannot be universalised. Kant claimed that to know that the action is morally right, one must think carefully whether others, when placed in the same situation or performing the act, would do the same thing as you. One must not carry out the action if they do not believe that all people would act that way in that situation. Kant came up with such an absolutist theory such as moral law, which allows come actions and forbids others because he believed that it would cause more harm than good and break down society.
I.e., he used lying as an example; he claimed that lying was morally bad however; sometimes a little lie was acceptable, such as a white lie. Yet Kant claimed that any lie would hurt someone and even if it didn’t hurt a human being it would hurt society. It would not be universalised. In a modern day scenario. There is a lady named Anne and she is married to Ben. Anne has become ill with an incurable degenerative disorder. Anne wishes to end her own life as her quality of life has become so low. Unfortunately for Anne, she is unable to do this by herself and wishes her husband (who is willing) to help end her life. This is illegal at present and because Anne does not want to die leaving Ben behind in jail, the couple wish the court to guarantee that Ben will not be prosecuted should he help his wife to die. Therefore, the question that we are presented with is this; is it appropriate for all who wish to commit suicide to do so? If we apply Kant’s theory its wrong because if it was universalised and everyone committed suicide than that would be the end of human race, it would not be a moral law and therefore from this euthanasia is morally wrong.
The second principle in Kant’s categorical imperative is ‘so act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other human being, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end.’ Kant believed that people should never be used as a means to an end. To Kant it was morally wrong to use someone for another purpose; to exploit them was morally wrong. He claimed that humans were the highest and important point of creation and we earned the same moral protection and unique treatment. Kant stated that it was our moral duty to seek than happiness of others but only within the law and if no one else suffered as a consequence. I.e., stealing a teddy to make your cousin happy would be morally wrong even though you made the baby happy because it has made the storeowners unhappy in the process. Therefore, going back to the euthanasia example, Kant is believes then, that 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.
The third of Kant’s principle is ‘ so act as if you were through your maxim a law making member of a kingdom of ends.’ It was vital that a moral law or statement did not treat another as an end. No actions brought on by a moral statement or law should in anyway use a human being as a means to an end. This is because you would not be able to create a maxim such as ‘I can steal because everyone else does’.
