Ethics of Kant and the Categorical Imperative

According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative dictates that one should act according to principles that could be universalized without contradiction. In other words, an action is morally permissible if it can be applied consistently to all people in similar situations without causing inherent contradiction or harm.

The exercise of our free will and use of rationality is individual to us, and such can not be commanded universally. Hypothetical imperatives is to do an action because it is a means to a desired end: it has inclination and justification that is outside acting of duty. Hypothetical imperatives are based on the a posteriori empirical realm. For example, Michael Vick got in trouble for dog fighting and now he is going around and speaking against it to restore his family name. So the imperative would be stated like this, Due to the fact that Michael Vick got caught dog fighting he is now going around and preaching to restore his family name. This shows that its not the categorical imperative and that he has an ulterior motive. Now if he was doing it because it was good in itself than Kant would agree that his action could be justified for all the good of all rational beings. Another hypothetical imperative would be the Denver University presidential debate. The city spent 500,000 thousand dollars on extra employees and security for the debate. As one put it there is a ying and a yang to the debate. They spent the money so that they could get public recognition and extra tax dollars. So the hypothetical imperative would go, Increasing the money we spent on the debate will therefore increase our revenue and public recognition. Kant believes that the categorical imperative should become the only principle in judging if an action is good

On the other hand, there are few to none examples of a Categorical Imperative, because as Kant would believe, they have to be actions that are good in themselves completely. To arrive at the Categorical Imperative, Kant starts off by explaining that an action is good without qualification if done from duty and not primarily from inclination, or ulterior motives. This, in a more simplified manner, means an action is good if it was the right thing to do and a person did it for the sake of duty and not because of anything else, like instincts or feelings. Kant believes there are very few people in this world that can actually live up to the standard of duty. From this point, Kant states that moral worth is determined by the rule or principle by which an action has been decided, not in the purpose to be attained by it. This statement goes back to the difference of means versus ends; is a person’s action based on the mean or is it based on ends? After Kant arrives at this, he then affirms that duty is the reverence for the law. The difference between reason and will is established at this point. Reason, or thought, can be described as theoretical or pure reason, or it can be described as practical reason. Kant describes theoretical reason as determining a given concept, but practical reason is idea of making the concept actual. Will, on the other side, can be broken down to either the “holy will” or empirically mixed

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

Immanuel Kant explains different concepts in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; one includes “The Categorical Imperative” that I agree with. Kant states “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 113), which describes Categorical Imperative. The reason a person acts should be based on reason and if it were something they wanted to become universalized or not.

Thus, the ends or consequences of an action never justify the means or motive of the action. So, if someone were to act morally right the end result of their action would not matter, whether it be positive or negative. Furthermore, Kant believes there is only one good thing in the world, good will. “A good will is an intention of a rational being which acts in accordance with universal moral laws that the human automatically and freely give themselves.” The good will is the only true good there is and goodness only comes when we act a certain way. Thus, people must contemplate their actions before they pursue them. Kant believed in a principle of morality called, The Categorical Imperative, which determines whether a moral duty is good or bad. In the Kantian ethics it is stated that, “a right act has a maxim that is universalizable” (Pence 11). Kant uses the word maxim which is a rule or principle you act on. So, this means our maxims should be something everyone is able to do, not making any exceptions for yourself. For example, keeping promises; if you want others to keep their promises you should be obligated to keep yours also. Additionally, Kant argues that “people are free only when they act rationally.” It is said that people act based on their emotions but Kant theory argues otherwise. Deontological theory states that we do not act morally because it is what we’re accustomed to but rather when we understand the rules and

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

The difference in the two are that categorical imperatives must be proven and universal vs. hypothetical doesn’t. Kant believes that all Categorical imperatives are moral duties and they apply to only rational people. Categorical imperatives “are commands of reason that do not depend on a person’s desires and the moral duties must be met even if their not that specific person’s desires or wants.” The first categorical imperative says, “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” The second states, “so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "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 means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

Kant believes that the someone Reason we shouldn’t do bad is because it’s irrational. To Kant being rational is the very thing that makes us human. Rational thought is the one thing that separates us from animals and is our biggest tool of being and existence. That being said, being irrational would be going against the very thing that makes humanity human. That act irrationally in Kant’s eyes would be to act immorally and to act immorally is bad in itself. So as humans our duty to ourselves and the rest of humanity is to act in a rational, moral fashion. We can achieve that by acting in a way that involves what Kant considers universal law, which would be act in way that if everyone else in the world acted in the same fashion the world would be content and a livable place. One example of this is the cutting in line example, that if everyone cut in line then there would be no lines and everywhere you go you would end up just fighting your way to the front and this type of society is unfeasible to will yourself to live there.

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

The categorical imperative suggests that a course of action must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The course of action taken can also be reasoned by its ability to be seen as a universal law. Universal laws have been deemed as unconditional commands that are binding to everyone at all times. Kant

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)