Categorical Imperative

Categorical Imperative

1. A categorical imperative differs from an hypothetical imperative, which doesn't prescribe or demand any action. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional: 'If I want x, I must do y'. If I want to lose weight, I ought to go on a diet. If you want a sandwich, open the fridge. These imperatives are not moral. For Kant, the only moral imperatives were categorical: I ought to do such and such. For example, I ought to tell the truth. This makes no reference to desires or needs. There are three principles of the categorical imperative.

   • The first principle is the universal law. The categorical imperative is 'do not act on any principle that cannot be universalised'. In other words, moral laws must be applied in all situations and all rational beings universally, without exception. If an action is right for me, it's right for everyone. If it's wrong for one person, then it's wrong for all people. Kant can't maintain the proposal 'stealing is wrong for everyone, but because I haven't enough to pay the rent this month I can steal'. For an action to be morally valid the agent - or person performing the act - must not carry out the action unless he or she believes that, in the same situation, all people should act in the same way.
     • The moral law permits certain actions and forbids others. Kant argued that to allow exceptions would harm someone and have an eroding effect on society. He gave an example using the case of lying. In certain circumstances we might think that a lie is better than the truth. It might get us out of trouble. Kant argued that a lie always harms someone; if not the liar then mankind generally, because of violates the source of law. If everyone was to act in this way, society would become intolerable.
     • The second principle is, treat humans as ends in themselves. Kant's second principle in the categorical principle is: 'So act that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person pf every other human being, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as the end.
       • You can never treat people as a means to an end. You can never use human beings for another purpose, to exploit or enslave them. Humans are rational and the highest point of creation, and so demand unique treatment. This guarantees that individuals are affordable the same moral protection. There can be no use of an individual for the sake of the many, as is the case with utilitarian's who can sacrifice the few for the greater good of the greatest number.
         • Kant argued that er have a duty to develop our own perfection, developing our moral, intellectual and physical capabilities. We also have a duty to seek the happiness of others, as long as that is within the law and allows the freedom of others. So we should not promise one person's happiness if that happiness prevents another's happiness.
       • The last categorical principle is an act as if you live in a kingdom of ends. 'So act as if we were through your maxim is a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.' Kant required moral statements to be such that you act as if you, and everyone else, were treating each other as ends. You can't act on a rule that assumes that others don't treat people as ends. You can't create a maxim such as 'I may lie as all others lie'. If such rules were pursued, society would become intolerable.
         • The categorical imperative is a powerful set of moral principles that prohibit acts that would be commonly considered wrong such as theft, murder, fraud, violence and sexual abuse. They bind us to set rules that apply to everyone and that command respect for human life.
           • The contribution that Kant made is apparent iin three ways. Firstly, he makes a distinction between duty and inclination. We may be inclined to do whatever benefits ourselves individually, but mortality is more than personal preference. Secondly, he corrects the utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit. Kant insists you can't promote happiness if that happiness undermines another's happiness. The moral value of an action comes from its intrinsic rightness in itself. This means that justice is impractical, and that justice for individuals is safeguarded by the universal intrinsic worth, as the rational high point of creation. Humans can only ever treated as ends in themselves, never as means. Therefore, humans can't be expended for some apparent greater good. They can't be enslaved or exploited.