Posted: March 1st, 2023

Categorical Imperative

One of the discussions that have taken a central part in philosophy for sometime is the concern about the existence of right and wrong. Assignment help – Discussions concerning morality as well as ethical decision-making have been predominant throughout history especially concerning human conducts. Scholars such as Emmanuel Kant have been in the forefront advancing knowledge regarding morality. Many theories have been postulated by scholars in an attempt to establish whether morality exists (Schroeder, 2005). Kant is one of the great philosophers who have advanced considerable thought on the issue.
This paper critically looks at the approach of Kant’s ethical system by postulating about categorical imperative and the reasons that make the argument unjustified.
Understanding categorical imperative
Kant makes us believe that categorical imperative assist individuals to comprehend actions that are obligatory as well as those that are forbidden. He outlined three categorical imperatives. The first one was universal law whereby he contended that all moral statements needed to be put as general laws that could be applied to everybody in diverse circumstances. He stipulated that under no circumstance should there be an exception on such law. The second one concerned treating individuals as ends in themselves. According to him, people needed to be treated equally. The third categorical imperative concerns acting as if one lives in a kingdom of ends. By this he meant that all human beings ought to agree on similar moral laws (Timmons, 2002).
Kant’s categorical imperative unjustified
Kant seems to have missed a point by supposing that morality to a greater extent is a system of categorical imperative. The major reason for this is that, he only viewed moral laws to be categorical such that individuals have to do a particular thing without referring to their to a large extent bits logic since human beings are often guided by their desires and needs when undertaking particular actions. Kant presented a broader picture about the value of reason by stipulating that for an act to be considered to be a categorically imperative, it ought to be perceived as to be right in itself especially if it has been confirmed by reason. However, this does not necessarily approve the action to be right. I wouldn’t’ figure out how human beings would be able to universalize their actions. People often have diverse desires as well as needs. Therefore, given the same circumstances, it is not possible for all individuals to act in accordance with similar rules. Kant was trying to stress a point that categorical imperative should be taken to be an act that can be commanded when it ought to be relevant as well as applied to everyone (Timmerman, 2007).
Literally, Kant’s argument can be construed to mean that, since an act that is moral is taken to be the right thing individuals should do, it makes it universal as well as binding to all people to follow such act. In addition, Kant makes us believe that such an act should be executed without any condition. In my view, philosophy should be guided by reason as one of the basic principles. Therefore, people might be doing a certain act which they take as right to them, however, that act could be detrimental to the welfare of other people. In other words, the act could be of harm to other individuals. Therefore, this does not make it right. My proposal is that conditions should be accepted as a basic form of evaluating whether an act is right or not.
It is worth noting that categorical imperative that Kant postulated focuses only on moral actions that are either general or abstract (Sherman, 1998). Since categorical imperative according to him establishes which action can be considered right or wrong, it means that if a person doing opposite of what is expected only invites contradictions. I must agree that he was right; however, he believed that such contradictions are only practical and not logical. The point he missed is that it could be due to logic that a person chose a contradictory act.
Even though it is agreed that Kant is one of the philosophers who have critically shaped modern thinking especially concerning moral decision-making, I feel that his system does not validate the reality of the moral laws.
Problems with categorical imperatives
A broad perspective on categorical imperative shows s that Kant maintain that people need to act only in accordance with a maxim which they could will (Zweig, 2003). Furthermore, he claims that that law needs to be universal. In my view, this claim has several defects. First, justification of such claim is grounded on what I would refer to as purple jelly been squabble. By this I mean that, if a bowl has beans which only purple and red jelly, it means that by removing all the red ones it would only be left with purple jelly in it. By this I mean that it is unjustified to think that imperative has to contain universality as well as an end together. If Kant is right by referring the two aspects as the form and matter of those imperatives, I think that their association is then different. In reality, the two aspects cannot exist autonomously. A form and a matter have to go together. If you take away the matter in a suggestion, it means that you take away the suggestion and you are left with nothing. This renders it meaningless (Sullivan, 1989).
The second defect is that Kant postulates that obedience to categorical imperative should be the best thing. This constitutes conformity individuals’ action to moral laws which are universal. In my views, conformity to universals laws is not evident at all. Another reason is that, categorical imperative does not seem ordinary. In fact, it fails to tell us the actions that we need to perform. As an alternative, it portrays to us the sort of maxims that we should act on as if people’s forethoughts were not typically the actions that should be performed; rather it’s about the maxim under which they need to be performed. In my views, categorical imperatives are a representation of a kind of a test on maxim or rather a test to rules of conduct. This can only be justified if only the stipulations were strict enough such that they would determine an exclusive set of satisfactory rules. Engstrom (1992) points out that Kant claims that categorical imperative is the single principle which guides morality. In my views, this means that we should expect it to determine morality principle exclusively due to the fact that it would leave multiple mismatched maxims set open. This would mean that we wouldn’t have a basis for selecting among them since there would be no other morality principle that we would choose from apart from categorical imperative. This means that people’s expectations are dissatisfied. Utilitarian moral theory would therefore put to test Kant’s presupposition. For instance, it isn’t possible to will universal happiness maximization (Louden, 2000).
It bits logic why we should treat individuals as ends and not merely as means. In my views, this is a circularity problem that Kant’s categorical imperatives argument has. Kant wants us to believe that the reason people should only be treated as ends is that they possess intrinsic which are incommensurable value (Louden, 2000). He also argues that they posses that value due to their capability of morality as well as having dutiful action which he thinks is the solitary intrinsic that is incomparable and good for humanity. In my view, Kant assumed there are duties. He failed to think that actions that are in accordance to false moral principles could also be good. Kant had postulated that Actions that are moral can only be appropriate if only people have obligations. However, he did not autonomously show that there are obligations. In reality, there cannot be an imperative moral to perform an obligation that does not exist (Zweig, 2003).
Kant argues that breach of promises represents treating the other individual to the party as a means and not merely the end in itself (Kant, 1989). If it he was right, morality of business dealings would be questionable since I wouldn’t understand the reason why a business person would overcharge a customer in order to gain profits. This is because he/she is promoting his/her happiness at the expense of the other (Guyer, 2000).
Kant’s doctrine does not seem rational to me. The reason I would give is that, it does not put into consideration that circumstances whereby people are forced to make comparison in values. For instance, if people choose health to be one of the incommensurable values, they have to make decisions on how much money they need to spend on healthcare. This therefore does not mean that it can entirely consume the gross national product of any nation thus leaving no resources for any other values. Therefore, I dispute Kant’s incomparable value concept since it appears to me to be a absurd mathematically. His notion on quantity which is neither less or greater than and still not equal to other values does not make sense to me. Taking it plainly that people should not be treated as means; it would mean that for comparison’s sake, it would be appropriate to sacrifice one individual for the sake of others (Baron, 1995).
Freedom of will
Kant argued that every event in life is caused by something and more importantly, the causation has to be according to moral laws. Therefore, he figured out that free choices have to confirm to free will. I find such argument confusing. The types of laws that compromise morality are not necessarily causal laws. If it was the law of nature it could be appropriate to argue in that direction, however, moral laws cannot be entirely pegged on free choices. It was as if he wanted to replace the law of free will with the moral laws through postulating categorical imperatives whereby he contended that people behave morally. Such optimistic views seem unreasonable (Kant, 1989).
Conclusion
Emmanuel Kant is one of the famous philosophers who have made several contributions to the field of philosophy. In the discussion concerning morality, Kant advances an argument concerning categorical imperatives which contains three aspects; universal law, treating people as an end and never as means to an end as well as acting as if one lives in a kingdom of ends. In as much as some scholars have sided with Kant on the issue, I find his argument being off the mark. I do not find it appropriate arguing that people moral laws should not be guided by individual’s desires as well as needs. People in most cases act on the basis of their desires and needs, which is a part of application of logic. Therefore, universal laws of morality are not applicable. In my view, treating individual as merely an end fails to make sense at all. Confusion concerning happiness as argued by Kant for instance cannot be justified.
Reference list
Baron, Marcia, 1995. Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell: Cornell U.P.
Engstrom, S. 1992. “The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Philosophy” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 51(4), pp. 747-80
Guyer, Paul, 2000, Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. New York: Cambridge U. P.
Kant, I. 1989, “Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” ed. Anthony Serafini, Ethics and Social Concern. New York: Paragon House Publishers.
Louden, Robert, 2000. Kant’s Impure Ethics. New York: Oxford U. Press.
Schroeder, Mark, 2005. “The Hypothetical Imperative” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83(3), pp 357-372.
Timmerman, Jens, 2007. Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sherman, Nancy, 1998. Making a Necessity of Virtue. New York: Cambridge U. P.
Sullivan, Roger J., 1989. Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory. New York: Cambridge U. P.
Timmons, Mark, ed., 2002. Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. New York: Oxford U. P.
Zweig, A. 2003. “Editors’ Introduction” and “Analysis of Arguments” in Kant: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Oxford U. P.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: custom essay, dissertation ideas, dissertation topic, essay example, essay topics