Philosophy
1. According to Kant what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives? Why must moral imperatives always be categorical? How would Kant use this distinction to criticize ethical egoism and utilitarianism.
According to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the difference between hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative is that the former refers to precepts and actions that only have conditional worth required to attain a desired objective; whereas, the latter refers to a universal moral principle of human conduct that is not limited by any condition in the determination of one’s duty. For Kant, the only one categorical imperative is: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst [simultaneously] will that it should become a universal law” (37).
Moral imperatives ought to be always categorical because they are not means to an end, but rather, they must be viewed as ends in themselves. For instance, never to lie is a categorical imperative for Kant because it is the morally right thing to do so. If lying is universalized, to the contrary, there would be disharmony. No one would trust his or her fellow human being. There would likewise never be assurance that people will honor their words or those of others. Hence, for Kant, moral imperatives must always be categorical or unconditional (that is, not restricted or modified by reservations) because we are then acting out of moral duty or obligation, which ought to be universalizable in its whole aspects.
Kant would use the distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives to criticize ethical egoism and utilitarianism by stating that the two based their claims on subjective or emotive valuing of people and consequences. For instance, for ethical egoists, there is no such thing as any moral imperatives of any sort because you only have to pursue your own welfare on the basis of your morality. It means that you can lie as long as it would become beneficial to you. Additionally, for utilitarianists, consequences are at all that matters in human action as long as it brings about the greatest happiness for the most number of people. It is an either / or: You should or should not lie. Should you lie, it is for the maximum interest of the majority. Should you not lie, it still the same reasoning. Everything is a means to an end or end in itself if it is for everyone’s, let alone, most number of individuals’ satisfaction. However, for Kant, it all boils down to ultimate practical moral rules.
Kant believes both in hypothetical and categorical imperatives, but gives utmost premium to the latter. This is because Kant’s Deontological Ethics is based on pure reason using moral rules, which determine ultimate practical ethical maxims. He would never subscribe to ethical egoism despite Kant’s view on hypothetical imperatives that are based on human inclinations or desires because they are means only to something else and are not founded on human rationality. Likewise, Kant would also never subscribe to utilitarianism because their views about morality are tentative, that is, dependent on greatest possible desirable outcome and not on human conduct that must at the same time become universal law. Kant’s Ethical Theory concerns itself fundamentally and ultimately on unconditional, unqualified and absolute obligation emanating from pure reason.
Kant’s use of Categorical Imperative, which is an end in and by itself, is only to test hypothetical imperatives, which are means only to some other means. Kant focuses greatly on the final goal of being ethical such that an autonomously, volitionally and rationally motivated human being (or his or her action) is good in himself, herself and/or itself.
2. Having seen arguments concerning the various morally controversial issues, and the applications of the different ethical theories to them, do you think that one ethical approach is better than the others (i.e. based on ability to consistently address more issues, based on its ability to give a really good answer on the issue that is most important to you, etc.)? Justify your answer.
Even when I have seen arguments concerning the various morally controversial issues, and the applications of the different ethical theories to them, I think that one ethical approach is not better than others. Each of them can never have the ability to consistently address moral issues or to give really good answer on the moral issue most important to me, etc. For instance, I do not believe that Kant’s formula of universalizability is applicable for all cultures. Likewise, I do not adhere to the utilitarian principle of general happiness for the general public because there are private minority issues worth protecting, etc. Hence, depending on my stance and circumstances, one theory may be as better or worse as another theory, but never in itself considering that each of them have its own strengths and weaknesses, as I will expound below:
Under Kantian Duty Ethics, though it values pure reason, goodwill, innate human worth, and [possible] universalizability of moral maxims, it does not offer exemptions to some exceptional moral issues of lying, promise keeping, etc. First, there is no such thing as pure reason given that man’s reasoning is sometimes fallible to fallacies or human errors. Second, how could goodwill or good motive be assessed considering that it is intangible or directly unobservable? Third, innate human worth is true of innocent people, but how about a hardened criminal? Is it true that a person never ought to lie even to a murderer asking where my friend is for him or her to kill him or her? Of course, not! Fourth, morality is both objective and subjective, cases to case basis, dependent on culture, etc. You cannot claim that something is a universalizable moral principle if it has exemptions, loopholes, drawbacks, etc. You can never tell when white lies are never ever beneficial if they would somehow prevent or hinder a lesser evil or greater good from occurring.
When it comes to utilitarianism, how can one subscribe to it when the welfare of the minority is at stake? Would you allow the torture of the innocent daughter of a terrorist just to know where he hidden the explosives or bombs? I would not permit it even when there will be other authorities who will use every means within their power to save more lives. Likewise, utilitarianism is an impersonal ethics given the Trolley dilemma where most people would turn on the switch or lever just to divert the car to another trail and kill only one person instead of five. However, most people will not push (that is, sacrifice) a fat man in a trail where the car is headed just to prevent five people from dying. How come turning on a switch and not pushing the fat man to save five people is a morally desirable choice even though there is not a conclusive resolution to this seemingly straightforward moral challenge?
In the case of virtue ethics, the question is: What is virtue? What does it mean to be virtuous? Are all virtues the same for all people and under all circumstances? Who is a virtuous role model? Are all virtues (e.g., moderation) good? A particular virtue may be advantageous to an individual but not to another individual? For instance, a lying may mean different to someone who persistently lies and to another person who simply use a white lie given the inevitability of constraints beyond his or her control. Further, what is sometimes highly regarded as virtuous is feigned virtue because the agent has vested interest (e.g., a person is industrious because he or she knows that his or her boss is watching over his or her shoulders). Likewise, one who is considered a role model could turn out to be a vicious individual (e.g., fanatic Nazi Germans highly regarded their Fuhrer Hitler because of his ideology concerning the superiority or excellence of the Aryan stock). Moreover, not everything in moderation is good because some people need more dosage of virtues than others, just like medicine. For instance, everyone should respect, as much as possible, the right of another person; however, most businesses are run under the precept: “Customers are always right.”
Given the above justification, my final answer is that one ethical approach is better than the rest if it can work out exceptions and non-exceptions, which is simply tautologically self-contradictory. Ethical theories, e.g., Kantian, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, etc., all have their own pros and cons. If all, or even one, theory does not have a disadvantage, I would absolutely subscribe to it incomparably with the rest. However, the reality is, no ethical theory is without any disadvantage. Nevertheless, it does not mean that they do not all have value whatsoever. It is only that morality or ethics is a complex subject matter requiring in-depth understanding, insight and wisdom than necessary.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. (D. Stevenson, Trans.) The Internet Classics Archive. (n.d.). Web. 18 May 2014.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Ed. Allen Wood. Trans. Allen Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
Mackinnon, B., Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. California: Wadsworth, 2012. Print.
Mill, J. Utilitarianism. London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1879. Web. 18 May 2014.
