Chapter 8: ETHICS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Categorical Imperative |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(NOTE: You must read
only those linked materials that are preceded by the capitalized word READ.)
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will. Those acts are morally praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected, particularly the consequences to self. The only thing GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD WILL. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people. Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative. Act according
to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as
if it were a universal law.
For
Kant the GOOD involves the Principle of Universalizability! Kant argues that there can be four formulations of this principle: The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature." The Formula of the End Itself: "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." The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims."
The
Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your
maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends." Never treat a person as a means to an end. Persons are always ends in themselves.
We must never use or exploit anyone for whatever purpose. VIEW: Kant and Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35 Video: Beginner's Guide to Kant's Moral Philosophy The Categorical Imperative is NOT the Golden Rule Kant’s Deontology is presented in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason
wanted to find a basis for ethics that would be based on reason and not on
a faith in a god or in some cold calculation of utility that might permit
people to be used for the benefit of the majority.
Kant thought carefully about what it is that all humans would find
reasonable as a guide for human conduct.
People think it wrong to kill, lie, steal, and break promises.
Why is this so. Kant arrives at the idea that humans think these acts wrong
because they cannot will that others would do these things because it
would mean the end of civilized life, perhaps even the life of the actor
contemplating the right way to behave.
One can not will that people lie all the time for that would mean
the end to human communications if we could not trust what was said to be
true most, if not all, of the time. Perfect Duty is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time. e.g., no killing, no physically harming others, no
lies, no theft, no breaking promises Imperfect Duties are those which we should do as often as possible but can not be expected to do always. e.g., be charitable, loving,
COMPLETE
OVERVIEW of KANT and the ETHICS of DUTY
The Categorical Imperative in the Twentieth CenturyThe Categorical Imperative is NOT the Golden Rule With the Golden rule you are to:
Act as you would have others act towards you. The Golden Rule Around the World The same essential golden rule has been taught by all the major religions (and philosophies) of the world going back approximately 3500 years. Here are just some examples.
Why should willingness to be on the receiving end of like action make it permissible? If masochists are willing to suffer others' sadism, would that make sadism right? More generally, can acceptance of being on the receiving end of like action legitimate anything? Kant's improvement on the golden rule, the Categorical Imperative: Act as you would want all other people to act towards all other people. Act according to the maxim that you would wish
all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. The difference is
this. With the Golden rule a
masochist or a sadist would be justified in causing or receiving pain.
This is not what the Kantian Principle would support. From Don Berkich: " Some make the mistake of thinking that the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is but a badly worded version of the Biblical "Golden Rule"--Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.
Because the same result cannot be obtained by application of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent. " The Categorical Imperative is NOT the Golden Rule PROBLEMS WITH KANT”S THEORY 1. The theory applies only to rational agents.
It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational,
e.g., humans with brain malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative
coma. 2. The theory cannot resolve conflicts between
duties: a.
between two perfect duties b.
between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty How would a person resolve a conflict between two perfect duties such as never tell a lie and avoid harming someone? What if telling the truth were to harm someone? How would you resolve the conflict between the
perfect duty, say to keep a promise to pick your friend up with you auto
at a certain time, and an imperfect duty, say to stop on the way to pick
up your friend in order to give CPR to someone, a stranger, and save that
stranger’s life? 3. A clever person could phrase the maxim to be
universalized in such a manner as to permit almost anything.
By placing qualifiers on the maxim or peculiar definitions on terms
a clever actor could satisfy the categorical imperative and yet be acting
in a manner otherwise not consistent with it. What if someone were to promise to be faithful to his mate and not have sex with another woman. Then that person engages in oral and anal forms of physical interaction leading to orgasm and yet thinks that the promise was not broken because the meaning of “sex” did not include those forms of interaction. RESOURCES and SUGGESTED READINGS on KANT: · Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals GrGroundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals · What is the best way to live? Kant · A Critique of the Kantian Ethics · Kant, Immanuel: The Critique of Practical Reason · Kant, Immanuel: The Critique of Pure Reason · Kant, Immanuel: Fundamental Principles Internet Encyclopedia of Philsoophy (IEP ) on Duties and Deontology - Kant, Immanuel -- Metaphysics - A Critique of the Kantian Ethics by Michael Huemer Spring, 1993 - Critique of Kant in Schopenhauer's Thesis: On the Basis of Morality Andreas Wißmiller Kant in History of Ethics by Darwall, - There are other theories. We shall move on to examine them. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proceed to the next section.
|
Return to: Table of Contents for the Online Textbook |