kant
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Pennsylvania State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
432
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by helenamarie78
Helena May
Political Theories 17W
Professor Lappas
April 25, 2018
Kantianism in Depth: Categorical Imperative
In class, we discussed Immanuel Kant amongst other philosophers on their theories to a just
society. Immanuel Kant got his footing as being a firm opponent of utilitarianism, which was giving rise
by philosopher John Stuart Mill. Kant believes that there are certain actions as humans that are
prohibited, even if that action will bring out more happiness than the alternative. In the 18th century,
Kant became the founder and creator of critical philosophy that a law is either complete or
unquestioning. Kantianism phases two questions to whether a law be moral or not; 1. Can I rationally
will that everyone act as I propose to act? 2. Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather
than merely using them for my own purposes? Kant held these questions high when acting as moral
beings. If the answer to either of these questions is “no”, then we must not act on the action. This way of
thinking leads us to Kant’s categorical imperative (Anscombe 2001).
Before diving into categorical imperatives and what they mean to Kant and a moral society, it is
best to know how he got there. In the book, “Justice: What’s the right thing to do?”, by Michael Sandel
he broke down how Kant reached the categorical imperative. There are three contrasts that Kant uses to
reach the categorical imperative, mortality: duty v. inclination, freedom: autonomy v. heteronomy, and
reason: categorical v. hypothetical imperatives.
We start with Freedom, which is deemed good, we are
all searching for some form of freedom. Freedom is then broken down into heteronomy and autonomy.
Heteronomy to Kant is bad because it is not coming from inner will, it is a law given from outsiders,
whereas autonomy comes from within. Autonomy is good, we are acting to a law that we created
ourselves. Autonomous will has us not only acting to please others, but in the process we are still
pleasing ourselves. Within autonomy is inclination and duty, we do not want to act on an action through
inclination because that is solely for the need of pleasure. We must act on duty because of moral
motivation. Kant believes that the capacity to act autonomously is what gives human life a special dignity
(Sandel 110). From here the question of what gives an action moral worth arises. It is doing the right
thing because it is the right thing and not for some ulterior motive. This is where the categorical
imperative then comes into play.
Categorical imperative has been expressed in multiple ways, but commonly as an unconditional
command. To get a better understanding of what exactly a categorical imperative is, seperate the two
words. Categorical means explicit or direct, and imperative means authoritive or commanding. When in
terms with mortality and categorical imperatives, Kant believed that they go hand in hand. You cannot
opt out of mortality or chose when it applies to you, instead you should be commanded by it (Anscombe
2001). A hypothetical imperative is a conditional command, it is something you desire. Kant uses
hypothetical imperatives to contrast a categorical imperative because hypothetical imperatives use
instrumental reasoning: if you want X, then do Y. Kant writes “ If the action would be good solely as a
means to something else the imperative is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself, and
therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical.” It
applies regardless of the situation.
The connection between both morality and categorical imperatives would be that the morality is
the foundation of the categorical imperative. The reason being is because the imperative itself is a
command and you can’t say it doesn’t pertain to you, nor you backing out of it. A categorical imperative
works in multiple ways. Immanuel Kant breaks it into 2 formulas: universalize your maxim, treat persons
as ends. Kant has said before that all these are all the same but currently there is no evidence of that.
Kant claims the second is the easiest to understand as well as the first formula is just a categorical
imperative.
Kant believed that there was one moral rule that we must follow, he lays it out in his categorical
imperative with the first formulation. Kant writes, “ There is therefore only a single categorical
imperative and it is this: ‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law.’” He calls this the formula of universal law. By the word “maxim”, Kant
means that it is the rule or principle on which you act upon. We should only act out on principles that we
can apply universally without any contradictions. This makes the categorical imperative both universal
and impartial. The fact that all people, with respects to being rational, would have to act the same exact
way makes it universal, but it is impartial because the actions are not acted on by their own wills, but
because they respect the dignity of other humans, and do not put themselves above others (Pecorino,
2002).
Mortality becomes more clear and present in Kant’s second formula to his categorical
imperative. His calls this formula the formula of humanity, and it states this formula “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.” Kant believes there is a fundamental difference
between persons and things. Persons are rational beings and rational beings have dignity, this way of
reasoning is what led to the second formulation of the categorical imperative. We do not take into effect
other forms of human attachment, such as prior knowledge of them, when giving respect to other
humans. We are required to uphold the human rights of everyone, regardless of any terms of knowing
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
this person, because they are worthy of respect.
Kantianism, or the theories of Kant, believe that the rightness or wrongness of one person's’
action does not rely on their consequences, but on whether they fulfill our duty (Anscombe 2002).
Theories of these nature are an example of deontological moral theory, and says that some acts will
always be wrong, even if the outcome is satisfactory. Kant believed in doing the right thing because it
was the right thing, blindly obeying the moral law despite our intuitions. This is why the categorical
imperative and Kant’s way of thinking was different from utilitarianism and other philosophies during
this time period.
Work Cited:
Anscombe, Elizabeth. “Kantian Ethics.”
Www.csus.edu
,
www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant's Moral Philosophy.”
Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
, Stanford University, 7 July 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp.
Kant, Immanuel, et al.
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
. Yale University Press, 2002.
Kemerling, Garth. “Kant: The Moral Order.”
Kant: Morality
,
www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
.
Percorino, Philip. “Categorical Imperative.”
Categorical Imperative
, 2002,
www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Cat
egorical_Imperative.htm.
Sandel, Michael J.
Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
Langara College, 2016.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help