Kant speaks of the categorical imperative as being “conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason” (567). In other words, the categorical imperative does not have some kind of hidden agenda for the person carrying out the action. The person expects nothing that could assist them in any fashion to come from the transaction. Basically, the reason for performing the action in no way depends upon its outcome. However, the categorical imperative as a whole is a broad concept which can be broken down into smaller segments. There are two major differing forms of the categorical imperative, the universal law and the humanity principle. Universal law states that one should …show more content…
Basically, the humanity principle deals with how we treat and respect others. Through the humanity principle, Kant notes that it is acceptable to use people as a means to our own ends (helping get some of our wants and needs through the help of others), as long as we treat them as ends in themselves (treating them kindly and with respect). While Kant creates a strong view of ethics through the categorical imperative, he covers a very different prospect through the hypothetical …show more content…
While Kant’s position of putting others before oneself and thinking of the consequences of one’s actions creates a noble and righteous view of morality. However, it does have a few concerning loopholes. For example, if someone were to try to carry out an action that would cause no harm to others if everyone else also did it, this would obviously pass under the universal law. However, if the person had to do something considered immoral in order to be able to carry out the action, it would still pass the requirements necessary for an action to be considered to fall under the universal law, as this action has no effect on the primary action that passed under the law. For example, if someone decided that they were going to drive their car to work and hit anyone who stood in the way, this would still fit within the universal law as killing these people would have no effect on getting to work. In addition, if this were established as a universal law and everyone did it, it would not affect the first person from getting to work. Therefore, it fits the universal law. Obviously, murder would not heed to the categorical imperative in any other way other than through this loophole. Kant makes the mistake of assuming that everything will work out through his categorical imperative, but conflicts such as this cause that to be impossible, making it an extensive flaw in his reasoning
Rather, Kant believed that life holds certain categorical imperatives that one must not violate. An example of a categorical imperative would be not to murder. Regardless of any incentive one may have to murder another individual, one must unconditionally follow this imperative (Anscombe). Kant arrived at these categorical imperatives by describing the formula of universal law (Anscombe). In this, Kant states that one may only act upon a maxim that could extend to the entirety of the universe; any action could be followed by any other individual without exception or repercussion (Anscombe). Thus, if an individual were to murder someone, that individual would accept their own murder to be morally permissible. Since this maxim cannot be universally adopted by our society, murder is classified as a categorical
Kant describes them by stating, “When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain- until its condition is give. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains,” (88). Like before, categorical imperatives are absolutely moral in themselves, meaning they do not rely on a person’s desires or feelings. This is compared with hypothetical imperatives, which are obligations that have an end result of your action, which in turn results in your personal desires or thoughts. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, “I need to ea... ...
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Another, more obvious problem with the first step of the categorical imperative is the black and white nature of the world in Kant’s opinion. He simplifies morality to an extreme extent with no room for argument. For example, Kant believes that suicide is wrong, no matter what, because if this became a universal law, “one [would see] at once a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 31). However, suppose there is a case in which a rich person has an abundance of food, and a poor person, on the brink of death from starvation, has none. Is it truly morally wrong for that person to take food? Can it really be said that this person has done a bad thing, when it is in the pursuit of survival, and comes at the cost of no one? In Kant’s opinion, yes, this man has had a moral failing, and I therefore argue that Kant has changed the makeup of what morality is, inventing his own rules for what is ethical without regard for the thoughts and opinions of other people in different situations from his own. Kant seems to deny the possibility of alternate viewpoints, and that some situations are much more difficult to deal with morally than others, such as in the case of the greater
The second act of Kant’s categorical imperative pertains to how we treat others. According to Kant, we must “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
According to Kant, rational people have to act according to the categorical imperative, which can be thought of as a sort of tool or set of rules that people can use to decide whether or not an action is genuinely morally acceptable. There are multiple formulations derived from it. The first formulation states that people should only act according to certain rules or maxims that can become universal laws that apply to everyone without contradictions. This means that in a given scenario, the situation should be generalized into a universal law. If this universal law is applied to everyone in a hypothetical world, it must make sense and be possible without contradictions. Even the hypothetical world does make sense without contradictions, it must also be a world that people would want to live in. If an action does not pass this test, Kant says that we have a perfect duty not to do that particular action ever. For example, people have a perfect duty not to lie because in a world where everyone lies, no one would ever know who was telling the truth, no one would trust anyone, and it would be a world that no rational person would want to live in. For each of these reasons, humans have a perfect duty not to lie to one another. It is also possible for certain things to be considered imperfect duties, or things that you should do some of the time but you’re not necessarily always obligated to...
This is not the point of Kant’s theory however, because he does not look at consequences for determining moral law, but rather at maxims. In order to determine what may produce more or less harm, it is true we would need to know the consequences of our actions. But, sometimes we cannot be sure of our consequences, and thus when we look at our intentions we can know if we are acting fairly (without deception or coercion) and decide on an action that would be moral based on a maxim of good will. O’Neil does point out that it is possible for a society to endure more pain in effort to protect individuals from being used as a mere means, yet they are doing so in a way to be the most fair, and therefore their actions can still be applied to the theme of giving everyone a fair value in life
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Kantian Ethics focuses on duties, rights, obligations, or principles. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act as if what action we decide would become universal law. The difficult part is determining whose duties and rights to abide by. Examining duty to the employer, duty to friendship, and duty to self is vital.
Kant gives example situations to demonstrate the application of the categorical imperative. One illustration defines a man who sees somebody in need but failures to help. Kant says this situation would not be moral. Not on the grounds of a wrong committed against the other person, but because this cannot be applied universally. Kant says that sooner or later we will all help, and if the maxim were applied categorically, we would be deprived of the help we required. Since actions are only seen as wrong if they cannot be applied categorically and not because they are wrong, result in harm to somebody, or violate their rights. This could lead to a society that believes helping anyone in a time of need would be considered damaging to the continuing
Kant first wishes to provide a distinction between person and things, and this distinction is the basis for the second formulation of the categorical imperative. Moral worth determines the motive behind the action; Kant uses this to formulate the categorical imperative. Using others is not morally correct and adds up to no moral worth. Kant does not claim that using a person as mean is incorrect, but using the person merely as means is wrong. Kant also states that “rational nature exists as an
Moving forward, the question remains.what makes Kant’s theory of enlightenment humanistic? Humanism is defined as a concern with the nature, capacity and potential of humanity, and the development and promotion of the same. Kant did not reject our normal, moral judgement.
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
Kant's Categorical Imperative Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted, regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “ The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willingness, i.e., it is good of itself”.