Kant's Categorical Imperative?

Question

Can anyone explain this theory to me? Also what are some laws that use Kants' theory?

Answer 1

Kant was a big fan of what he called the 'categorical imperative'. The categorical imperative works like this: something is moral if it makes sense as a universal law that will always be followed by everyone in the future. This is pretty much the formal definition.

So we can see there are lots of things the formal categorical imperative would prohibit. Universally applying murder or theft leaves everyone bereft of life or property... those aren't going to work (and so we have laws to prevent them!). Some slightly more ambiguous situations are prohibited too - you can't borrow money with no intention of giving it back because this results in either nobody ever lending money out or everyone made just as much a pauper as under the thief rule.

Yet there are still many things that Kant thinks are wrong which are completely permissible according to a formal interpretation of the categorical imperative. This is why Kant had to elaborate on a practical version of the categorical imperative. In the practical version, you consider not only the universalization of the act you're performing, but also of the act's effects.

For example, suicide could be allowed in the formal interpretation if your life appears to hold nothing but misery in the future. Indeed, by formal reasoning forcing the most miserable people to live as long as possible would be considered atrocious! In this case, Kant suggests that one of the practical concerns might be that suicide prevents a person from living up to their potential, and since universally having everyone waste their talents is formally a bad thing, then suicide is practically a bad thing (interestingly enough, suicide is also usually illegal except where the patient is in agonizing pain and has no hope of recovery... so it's still pretty similar).

Another example of the practical trumping the formal is charity. Arguably, there is no formal reason why a rich person MUST give to the less fortunate where his budget allows it. If nobody was charitable but only traded service for service, the world would not fall apart. Here Kant argues that there is no practical way to assure that you might not need such charity in the future, and likewise society benefits as a whole if other people can use their talents to the best of their abilities too. So again practical considerations favor universal benevolence rather than universal miserliness.

So, in summary, the FORMAL definition of the categorical imperative might be something like, "Something is moral to do if it would be beneficial if everyone in the universe did it." And the PRACTICAL definition would be more like, "...and, in addition, if any of the necessary consequences of that act are also beneficial if universalized."

Answering questions truthfully and as well as you can is certainly obeying the formal categorical imperative! ( :

Answer 2

According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative or moral principle from which all specific duties and obligations can be derived. He defines an imperative as any position that declares a certain action to be necessary and a categorical imperative as an unconditional, universal requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances.
He provides 3 formulations:
1) Act only accordingly to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
2) Act in such way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
3) So act as though you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Answer 3

I can't think of any specific laws, but almost all of our laws have at least some basis in this theory.

I'm not an expert, but I'll do my best from what I remember...Kant basically believe that for a person to take action on an 'imperative', the principle you used to decide that course of action must be able to be applied to everyone in that situation. That's covers how a person can't say it's not okay for others to steal, but it's okay for them to do so. Because if everyone stole, then personal property would no longer exist.

I happen to think of question, 'Does the end justify the means?' when I think of Kant's philosophy and that seemed to help me break apart and simplify it. Kant also believes that we should never treat are dealings with other people as simply a means to an end, but as an end itself.

I'll shut up now before I confuse things even more.

Answer 4

Ok. The Hypothetical imperative is the one that you make when you need to reach something. You have to find the way to achieve certain thing. So you have to judge in according to. For example: I would like to know Schopenhauer´s philosophy, so I must understand Kant. The Categorical imperative is about ends. You search something for his own sake. Kant believes that you have to behave yourself as if your behavior would be a model to everyone else, so If I ever wont to steel something, I have to think that I would hate that everyone take my behavior as a rule, so I can´t do it. This imperative is for his own sake.

Answer 5

IHR has the most accurate definition so far ---

i would add that these formulations of the categorical imperative *have absolutely nothing* to do with their results -- the effects don't matter -- only the motive that grounds the "maxim" upon which the action is based

maxims must be universalize-able if they are to be acceptable by the categorical imperative --
the maxim is the rule that you act on ---

for instance
a maxim for my action of lying might be "I will lie whenever it is beneficial to my financial situation"

the motive would be something like "I want to maximize my financial situation"

hope this adds to IHR's response.