What is Kant's Categorical Imperative?

Question

It goes:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

I take that to mean 'would society be able to function if everybody adopted that maxim'.

You might think it would be great for you to sneak in your neighbours back door and steal his DVD player but if everyone did that kind of thing society would collapse.

Have I understood?

Answer 1

You're not actually far off, despite what the previous answerer said - I think she misunderstood you.

It's more about rational coherence than the consequences. If you stole the dvd player, and thus willed that it be a universal maxim that dvd players could be stolen, you destroy the concept of dvd player ownership (because all dvd players can be stolen and no one would actually own theirs anymore) and thus make it impossible to steal any dvd player, because the concept of stealing is dependent on the concept of ownership. Get it?

Just in case you don't - Kant uses the example of promises. If you break a promise, and thus will that all promises can be broken, you destroy the concept of promises, and so it wasn't possible to make one in the first place. So you see?

While it's true society might collapse if everyone stole dvd players, Kant was much more interested in proving it to be immoral on an a priori, purely rational basis. I hope my rambling has helped :)

Answer 2

No, you haven't.
You are totally wrong.
"Maxim that can become a universal law" doesn't include stealing you neighbor's DVD, right?
By the way, this translation of categorical imperative is wrong.
Correct is: Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings."
So opposite to your individual needs or desires, Kant puts universal moral law applicable to everyone. This universal law doesn't allow you to steal for your own benefit. The real question is could this be applicable? I doubt due to human nature. Just make sure that you understand this maxim correctly!

Answer 3

He felt that a GOOD WILL was the highest "man" can have