Essay 1.
The universal formula of the categorical imperative is an objective law which proceeds from a subjective maxim – action and will. That is, when a given ethical consideration presents itself, a person must ask whether the action of his will agrees with nature (Kant 38). By its definition, the categorical imperative is the basis of duty. By nature, Kant means that which is objective, and that which exists as a part of nature – abiding by the laws of nature (Kant 38). Kant continues by stating that in ethical considerations, or duty, one must act subjectively through one’s will to determine the universality of its ethical consequences (Kant 38). Simply put, action is what one can do using their will – the reasonable part of an individual that initiates deeds. This is the maxim that is applied toward ascertaining what is a universal law. Regarding this, Kant states thusly: “So act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 38). Furthermore, Kant states that the categorical imperative is known a priori, i.e. that it does not require experience to know how the law works (Kant 37). This is largely because it is not a generalized “hypothetical imperative”, but is, as the term suggests, categorical. A hypothetical imperative can only be arrived at through an educated guess, but the categorical imperative is more specific.
For example, Kant cites a hypothetical case of a person who has financial problems. The individual is greatly distressed, and thinks he must take out a loan to ease his troubles, but knows he cannot afford to pay it back. However, if he makes a false promise, he could get the loan. Thus, the maxim (making a false promise to obtain loans) would render the meaning of the word, promise, utterly nonsensical. If the categorical imperative cannot become a universal law of nature based upon the individual’s will to act, then the action itself is unethical, or not dutiful (Kant 38).
Essay 2.
One of the biggest problems in our society is violence. A hypothetical scenario using Kant’s categorical imperative follows thusly: if a person acting out of self-defense shoots another person, is that an ethical action? That is, does the categorical imperative apply to this particular moral dilemma? Based upon the categorical imperative, this example passes. If a person utilizes the maxim of his will applied to action, and acts as if this is a universal law, the categorical imperative applies to self-defense. It would seem utterly (nonsensical) as well as undutiful and unethical to let people harm you by shooting (or any other way) without defending yourself. If everyone operated unethically in this way, no one would live long enough to even tell the story of how they did not defend themselves during an attack.
Thus, the will applied toward the maxim of self-defense fits the criteria of the universal test for the categorical imperative. This formula is certainly helpful in guiding a person in how they act. If they did not act in such a manner, the only people left in society would be violent and assaultive people who would know they could get away with attacking anyone – and they would not defend themselves. Thus, Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek” does not fit the criteria of Kant’s categorical imperative, and is of little help in such situations.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited and translated by Allen W. Wood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
