Knowledge is Power (21) - Kant and Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is an idea that the philosopher Immanuel Kant had about ethics.
Johann Gottlieb Becker (1720-1782) [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons
Kant said that an "imperative" is something that a person must do. For example: if a person wants to stop being thirsty, it is imperative that they have a drink. Kant said an imperative is "categorical," when it is true at all times, and in all situations.
The Categorical Imperative is a way of evaluating motivations for action. Kant believed that all our duties derive from an an ultimate commandment of reason, so an imperative is absolutely necessary.
Kant defined Hypothetical Imperative, as well as Categorical Imperative. While a Hypothetical Imperative is when you wish to obtain something, a Categorical Imperative is something that you must do, something that it is true at all times and in all circumstances, an unconditional requirement that must be obeyed, no matter what. That "something" becomes an universal law that Kant believed is the ethical duty that we have towards each other.
Hypothetical Imperative basically expresses a practical necessity of on action, so it has nothing to do with morality. According to Kant, only Categorical Imperative is moral. Kant's concept of morality is based on intention, as in why we make choices, not on consequences, as in what happens after you make the choice. He also said that the ethical decisions are to be made on logic and reason. Reason has both theoretical and practical functions. As reason determines human behavior and choice, the practical function is more important to us. The Categorical Imperative is universal, as all people must act the same way, and impartial, as people should not put their own ambitions above others.
According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative is our duty, as human beings, to determine what is right and what is wrong, as it is in law. Reason is the foundation of justice. A judge must be rational and impartial when applying the law. Law is to be obeyed and the judge must exercise unbiased reason. The search for universal law in science is the same as the search for universal low in human morality.
Some advantages of Kant's ethical view are:
- It is rational, consistent and impartial: Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of respect for persons in the way we live our lives. He believed that moral absolutes cannot be violated, people have rights, dignity, and intrinsic moral value.
- It is a moral framework for rights, as duties imply rights, and rights imply expectations. If every human has intrinsic worth (as Kant believes), then every human should have the same rights.
- It provides Autonomy, as we have a duty to pursue our happiness through the use of reason.
- It avoids consequences in making ethical decisions.
The main disadvantage of Categorical Imperative is that it is a command that you must follow, regardless of what you desire, therefore it is pitting happiness against morality. Emotions have nothing to do with morality, everything is based on clear reason.
This post is a part of my series "Knowledge is Power". In case you missed the previous articles, you can read them here:
Yeah, this is what I would consider to be the decisive argument against Kant's ethics. Kant has no answer to the person who says "Why should I do my duty? Why shouldn't I do what makes me happy instead?"
The correct answer IMO is that doing what is right will actually make you happy over the long-run in most cases, and this is why you should do it. Because Kant has made moral principles "duties" or rules though, he can't answer in this way. So instead, he claims there is no "inclination" that could make one want to do one's duty, but one should do one's duty anyway. That doesn't make much sense.
What do you think?
I totally agree with you. I am happy when I do something I was supposed to do and I know it is right. The problem is that not all people agree with what is right, so here comes Kant's theory. I see is as in law. We must follow laws, otherwise the society won't function.