Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Kant tried to develop a theory of ethics which relied on

reason rather than emotion. While he was not anti-religious, he wanted

an ethical system which was not clouded by religion, emotion or

personal interpretation. He placed emphasis on motives behind an

action rather than, like the Utilitarians, the consequences of an

action. He believed that consequences were no guide to whether an

action was moral or not. His theory is known as deontological, or

duty-based, where ends can never justify the means.He believed that

there were general rules which must be adhered to in every

circumstance. He called these absolute rules of what is good or bad

'Categorical imperatives'. These rules were rationally determinable.

Individuals must never be reduced to the level that they are a

convenience for the happiness of someone else. So in the case of

euthanasia, a person's inconvenience in having to look after a

terminally ill relative is no good reason for that relative's life

being ended early. He believed in self-rule and not in people being

used as a means to an end. People must be seen as

'ends-in-themselves', and it was part of everyone's duty to abide by

this principle.

Kant believed that categorical imperatives could be worked out by

deciding whether the rule could become a universal law (a principle

which would be to the benefit of all mankind). The moral agent must

determine whether the rule would be treating people as an end or just

as a means to an end and whether this system would be benefiting the

whole community where good ends were achieved.

His theory has been called 'duty for duty's sa...

... middle of paper ...

... faced with this situation. It

should be weighed up whether the best outcome would be achieved and

whether it be the best rule if it became a general rule. If, in the

case of abortion, the mother's life is saved, then this could become

the general rule.

An exception is not being made or an individual being given precedence

over the categorical imperative, the categorical imperative itself has

been re-evaluated. The scope of the categorical imperative has been

narrowed. The universal, right thing to do is to kill the unborn child

because it threatens the life of the mother. Compassion has been

achieved although it is incidental; it does not make the action any

more moral from the deontological point of view. Thus, the categorical

imperative might allow abortion in some cases, but it takes no account

of compassion.