Immanuel Kant stance on ethics is remarkable, as it pays no heed to the consequences of an action arguing that there exist particular objective rules that can be discovered by reasoning beings. The categorical imperative is simply an expression of this. Such theories are called “deontological” ethical theories; the root of the word is derived from the Greek word “deon” that means duty. Therefore, the categorical imperative states that people have a duty to act in particular ways according to moral laws. Kant’s categorical imperative pays a greater emphasis on the intent of an action as opposed to the consequences of the action; an action motivated by greed is the wrong action even if it results in good. This paper will examine the Kantian categorical imperative and how it serves as a means of determining the morality of an action, and also the objections and defenses that have been raised to the theory.
The most important concept that one must be aware is that Kant completely rules out the ends as the basis for a moral decision. As such, a decision’s morality cannot be based on the results it is expected to generate regardless of the impact. An immoral decision remains immoral regardless of the results that it produces. When a decision is determined by the particular end that is desired then Kant refers to this basis of reasoning as, “hypothetical” imperative and the hypothetical imperatives “cannot serve as a the grounds for determining the moral duty” of an individual. As such, the categorical imperative is when an individual makes a decision based on an ought presupposition, where the duty determines what ought to be done independently of the consequences.
The Kantian categorical imperative means that all the individual principles guiding a person’s maxims could consistently become universal laws. Therefore, it is arguable that the categorical imperative is a principle made about other principles; a “second order” principle. On the other hand, the first order principles are the particular moral principles that form the basis of determining the moral principles of an individual. An example that is often used to highlight the first and second order nature of the principle is the biblical 10 commandments. The commandments in the Kantian application would be the first order principles while the categorical imperative or the second order principle is what an individual determines to be the form of the first order principles in his or her decisions. The form taken for the categorical imperatives must be in a way that can be “universalized”; be applicable to all rational agents as universal moral laws. Kant further argues that the principles of categorical imperative cannot be determined empirically or through experience as this could translate to mean that more experienced people could have different principles than the less experienced people; this would contravene the Kantian doctrine of universality of moral duties.
Nevertheless, it is important to realize that Kant did not provide a system of morality. He simply argues that through reason rational agents can deduce the universal moral laws. Therefore, his “metaphysics of morals” does not attempt to set out particular moral principles and duties. The Kantian doctrine sets out the form that any such principles must have, by explaining the philosophical basis for the principles to acquire their particular forms.
The main objection that has been raised against the categorical imperative and Kantian philosophy in general is in its conception that moral duties are absolute and universal. Such a notion is simply impractical as throughout life people will often be faced with situations where there conflicting moral duties arise. Kant holds that a duty is absolute as it is categorical, it is derived from reason and therefore cannot be overridden by any other examples. This paper will use the famed Nazi dilemma to demonstrate the conflict of duties. This is the scenario raised where a man is hiding Jews in his basement during the Nazi era and a German SS officer asks him whether he had any Jews. The man is certain that they are hidden too well to be found. In such a situation, if the man exposes the Jews, they die and if he lies to the officer then he has violated the categorical imperative not to lie. Furthermore, if he manages to persuade himself of a maxim to lie then by the universality argument everyone should lie to the government and this is obviously a bad imperative. On the other hand, telling the officer the truth leads to the death of several innocent Jews. In such a situation then the Kantian, doctrine indicates that either decision made is wrong.
In response, it arguable that a real conflict of duties cannot occur, if a conflict emerges then it is a result of misunderstanding of one of the duties. Kant is clear that some of the duties under the categorical imperatives are not straightforward. For example, the Nazi dilemma is not really a dilemma for a strict Kantian as most people often forget. Kant is categorical against using the ends of a decision when deciding on the morality of an action. This leads to a cold and horrifying conclusion that if a strict Kantian has the choice then the Jews would be arrested as their resulting deaths were irreverent to the decision of telling the officer the truth. The conflict only emerges in the case of people with significantly less extremist views and considerations of morality.
Works Cited
Kompanje, Erwin JO and Yorick De Groot. "Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Brain-dead Patient." Intensive care medicine 6.41 (2015): 1153. Print.
Paton, Herbert James. The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971. Print.
Stanford University. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." 6 April 2008. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Online. 10 May 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/>.
