In this reading, Immanuel Kant expresses that there are categorical imperatives that lay the groundworks to what is moral or immoral. While this concept of categorical imperatives seems logical, I believe that there are exceptions in all situations that contradicts the categorical imperative. One of Kant’s categorical imperative was about the ethics of borrowing money. He expresses that under no circumstance should anyone lie about their intent to return borrowed money, since under categorical imperatives, if everyone borrowed without the intent of giving back, no one would ever lend money since no one would have the intention of giving the money back. I believe that this argument oversimplifies morals and what people are willing to do. Imagine
This is drawn directly from Kant, particularly when it takes the form of a person ignoring a rule he has made for himself. Foot says, however, that “the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency” (161). Immoral people are bad people, not incoherent people or people that dissolve in the face of their own irrationality. Then it is not irrationality that makes a categorical imperative special.
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
These two examples can demonstrate how each person can use the two formulations of the Categorical Imperative to decide whether a maxim is moral or not. Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel.
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
We are punished for lying, with the consequence growing as we did. You are taught what is right and what is wrong, with little to no grey area for debate. This is the way that Kant views society and what he agrees with. Immanuel Kant was a big believer that lying does no good and that we should not act towards the greater good. In terms of the beggar, Kant would very much be in favor of giving the beggar money. Lying as to whether or not you had spare change would go against Kant’s way of thinking. However, there may be an issue if they do ask word for word “Do you have any spare change?” and you honestly do not have any spare change, then you could honestly say “No, I am sorry. I do not.” Another part of Kant’s way of thinking is a type of maxim called universalism. Universalism states that we should act only if we think that everyone everywhere in the world should be doing it as well. Therefore, if we believe that it would be alright for everyone in the world to give a couple of dollars to all of the beggars everywhere, then we should give them money. If we were to give all beggars everywhere a couple of dollars, and we assumed they spent it on necessary items such as a meal or medicine for a disease, then in theory the world would be a lot less inhabited by beggars or homeless people. In 2005, United Nations estimated that there were 100 million homeless people worldwide compared to the 7.124 billion
The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less
The categorical imperative is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
would be unfair to use the one to the side as a means to save the
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
Google defines Categorical Imperative as “(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person 's inclination or purpose.” (Google) Thus, there is no middle ground on morals nor is there ever a situation to where one should commit a moral wrong doing. Immanuel Kant had strong views regarding Categorical Imperative and believed that universal law applies to all. He also believes there cannot be any exceptions to this rule, or it becomes right for all to live by the exception. Although Kant presents a strong argument on the topic of lying, he overlooks key elements that vastly flaw his thinking.
Kant 's moral theory focuses on the intention of the action, rather than any consequence attached to such action. According to Kant, an individual 's will is what animates the individual 's body, while the duty is the obedience to a moral law. An individual 's will is considered to be strong when it is aligned with duty, even if the consequences harm that individual. For example, a student can fail a test instead of cheating since he or she believes that cheating is wrong. "You should not cheat" is an example of a maxim, a subjective principle that governs action. In order for a maxim to be morally right, it must be a categorical imperative, taken from an individual to a universal scale. In other words, is it rationally possible...
Kant presents his followers with both categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Reitan). The hypothetical imperatives, often dubbed the imperfect duties, basically state, “If you want X, do Y (Reitan).” In other words, hypothetical imperatives are not obligatory of people, but encourage certain actions for certain results. Categorical imperatives say, “Do Y, no matter what you want (Reitan).” These perfect duties, as they are referred to as, are rules that we must follow without any acceptable exceptions (Degrazia, Mappes and Brand-Ballard). These perfect duties include the forbidding of killing innocent people, lying, breaking promises, becoming intoxicated, committing suicide, and masturbating (Horn). Kant ultimately believes that reason dictates what is right and wrong through the categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology, which has two formulations (Reitan). The first states, “Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time (consistently) will to be a universal law (of nature) (Reitan).” This is the philosophical equivalent of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” The second formulation, which could arguably provide a different
In Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he discusses his fundamental principle of morality. This is also known as his “categorical imperative”. His principle of morality basically states that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). Kant also seeks to apply his principal to suicide, as well has helping others in distress. Kant is seemingly successful regarding both issues. Because he succeeds, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s categorical imperative is written in a way that makes it out to be very plausible.
The fact that a person cannot withdraw their money from a bank because of moral restraints shows that there are some serious problems with the moral theory at work. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless, the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable. Works Cited:.. 1) Feldman, Fred.