Can anyone help me with the categorical imperative by Kant?

Question

Can someone please explain to me the Categorical Imerative?I would really like that you simplified because I'm a beginner in Philosophy...And if you can give me some exemples it would be great...THANKS

Answer 1

It basically says you should do only that which you would want everybody to do. So singing in the shower is ok, as you probably wouldn't mind it if everybody would sing whenever they took a shower. However, singing in the street in the middle of the night would not be ok, as you would not want everybody out in the street in the middle of the night to do that. That's the categorical imperative in a nutshell.

Answer 2

Kant's 'categorical imperative' is part of his theory of morality.

His theory is classified as a deontological theory, which means it argues that there are actions that are right or wrong no matter whether they have good or bad consequences. For example, telling a lie is wrong, whether it harms someone or protects someone from harm. It is simply wrong.

What Kant meant by an 'imperative' was a rule for the guidance of action. Not all such rules are moral rules. He called non-moral rules 'hypothetical imperatives' - which usually have the form "If you want A, you must do B in order to get it".

Kant's 'categorical imperative' is his main moral rule, the rule from which all other moral rules are derived. This imperative, he argued, is derived from the authority of human reason. He gave three versions of it, which he claimed all amounted to the same thing.

Version 1: Always act according to rules that you can reasonably will to be laws that apply to everyone. This version makes the point that the rules of morality apply universally and impartially. For example, lying is wrong for all - if there were exceptions to this, lying would defeat its own purpose because it would mean that nobody could trust what anybody said.

Version 2: Always act according to rules that presuppose that each person is an end-in-him/her-self and not merely an end for others. In other words, always treat people as if they are themselves ends (aims, goals) and not merely means (tools) to your own ends. This version makes the point that morality requires respect for other people. It can also be seen as a version of the Golden Rule (Treat others as you would have others treat you). For example, always tell others the truth as you would have them be truthful to you, because they, like you, are not merely a means to others' ends.

Version three: We are each the author of the moral law, because the moral law is what human reason will inevitably arrive at - and because of this, we are each equally required to obey that law. The point of this version is that while the moral law puts limits on our freedom it is also a result of our free use of our human ability to reason. For example, reason dictates that lying is always wrong - we can each arrive at that rule using reason and are each required to obey it.

One obvious reply to Kant is that consequences must surely be morally relevant. For example, what if telling a lie would save someone's life, or a thousand or a million people's lives - would it not then be morally justified?

Answer 3

Only if it's absolutely necessary.