Categorical imperative
The categorical imperative defines a philosophical concept that is central in Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy. This is a way to evaluate the motivations behind the action. According to him, the human beings have taken a significant place in creation. He adds that morality is summed in the commandment of imperative or reason where all obligations and duties derive. He further put it that an imperative is a proposition that declares action or inaction to be necessary. This concept is applied to denote an unconditional and absolute requirement (Paton 34).
Determining of moral duty
This concept is applied to determine the moral duty of human beings. Kant presents this as a method or test on act being morally wrong, morally right or found beyond the realm of moral. He used this concept as a source of moral justification. He further outlines that imperative implies when an act is perceived as good in itself and in conforming to reason. This emphasize on universalizing actions by considering whether other people would act in accordance with the similar rule in the same circumstance.
Consequently, Kant makes this clear that an act is imperative when it is applied by all people. He further adds that a categorical imperative is independent and unconditional on aspects of desires, goals and circumstances. This made him arrive at a conclusion that only categorical imperative can be a binding and universal law, a moral law that is valid to all rational beings in all times. This implies that a moral act defines the right thing to do, which is universal and binds the agent to adhering with the moral act (Williams 45).
In categorical imperative, acting opposite of what everyone in a similar situation would do would result into contradiction. This implies that an act is morally wrong when it results into contradiction. Additionally, he presented the universality of perfect duty which everyone must meet. Any person failing to meet this perfect duty does the wrong thing. He argues that all human has a perfect duty to act in ways that universalize their actions and avoid logical contradiction. This means that actions should not be relative to the human performing them. For actions to be judged as good, they should be that if all people were to perform them, they would cause no harm or any logical contradiction resulting from them (Walker 20).
He also suggested that people should act in ways that ensure that they do not treat others as just means to the ends but as ends in themselves. This is a requirement to respect humanity and treating people as valuable and unique and not as means by which things needed are obtained.
Kant applied this concept to test the general moral principles so as to determine acts based on their own general maxim. The general principle of actions is tested to be either morally permissible or a contradiction.
Actions as moral duty
He further explained this concept using some actions in society such as suicide. He posits that someone in extreme despair considering of committing suicide or not is usually in a dilemma. This is either thwarting his dissatisfaction or staying alive and facing the situation. Kant outlines that this feeling should make a person improve their lives. Therefore, committing suicide is universalizing the maxim by shortening the life. This is a practical contradiction as it does not improve life (Engtrom 39).
He asserted that deception or lying would be prohibited in all circumstances. For instance, any person intending to lie in order to borrow money that he does not intend to repay will cause contradiction. This is because universalizing such an action would make people not to lend money to others as they will not be paid back. This would result into contradiction of the prefect duty. Accepting this universally would make people not to trust others even when talking truth. He, therefore, denied deception for any reason or consequences.
He further argued that failure to cultivate personal talents would cause a society to subsist if all people did nothing. He notes that there are people who fail to cultivate their talents because they are enjoying pleasures in life. However, they would not have any pleasures to enjoy as there would be no one to create these pleasures. He asserted that everyone has a duty to cultivate their talents. Therefore, he affirms that laziness cannot be made a universal law and all people are required to cultivate their talents (Paton 58).
He further observed that people who are flourishing should not decline to offer charity to those in distress. He argued that all human require charity during desperate times. . He says that declining to give charity is morally wrong. This can be right only if the person declining to give charity accepts declining to charity be made universal. He concludes that failure to give charity to the needy is morally wrong (Walker 90).
These cases, if made universal as a law of nature, could result into treating other people as means and not ends in themselves. This could also result to a logical contradiction on what action is right or wrong.
Works Cited
Engstrom, Stephen P.. The form of practical knowledge a study of the categorical imperative.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print.
Paton, H. J.. The categorical imperative: a study in Kant's moral philosophy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1948. Print.
Walker, Mark Thomas. Kant, Schopenhauer and morality: recovering the categorical
imperative. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Print.
Williams, T. C.. The concept of the categorical imperative: a study of the place of the
categorical imperative in Kant's ethical theory. Oxford: Clarendon P., 1968. Print.
