Understanding Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

2002 Words5 Pages

The categorical imperative is an ethical theory that Immanuel Kant introduced in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. The theory falls under the broader category of deontology. This means it is based upon the conformance to duty, which for Kant was a pre-requisite for morality. But what does it mean for an action be done out of duty? Kant is careful to point out that good actions don’t necessarily always come from good intentions (i.e. not out of duty). Take the example of a (hypothetical) particularly active social climber on our own campus. They may act graciously and do kind deeds, leading the casual onlooker to concede that they are being moral. However, in reality the ‘maxims’ (internal rules that guide and inform one’s actions) …show more content…

our sense of duty) from the categorical imperative. For Kant, if something is to fit the categorical imperative, it must be an action that has a maxim one could make into a universal law. In the derivation of duty, Kant differentiates between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are those that the categorical imperative enforces because of the laws of nature (i.e. to universalize an action which contradicts perfect duty simply doesn’t make sense). An example of this is lying. It contradicts someone’s perfect duty as if lying was universalised truth would cease to exist. Therefore, being truthful is enshrined as a perfect duty that must always be followed. An imperfect duty just states that the reason behind doing an action can be universalised. So for example, we can will that people being helpful in our time of need should be universalised, so this becomes an imperfect duty. If someone in distress was to come to us for help, we should do …show more content…

Kant acknowledged that humans naturally ignore the categorical imperative because of our free will. He believed that human beings are evil by nature, and hence we have the propensity to break the categorical imperative. We have an innate desire to fulfil self-interest, which can often contradict our duty, and sometimes we may confuse what our duty is altogether. The theory also struggles due to its absolutist nature. It becomes difficult as a source of moral guidance when the consequences of a ‘dutiful’ action are obviously harmful, such as when telling the truth will obviously avoid a dreadful

Open Document