More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant and the categorical imperative
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals Immanuel Kant
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals Immanuel Kant
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant and the categorical imperative
Kant states in the Preface of Groundwork, his best known work on moral philosophy, that “The present groundwork is, however, nothing more than the search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, which already constitutes an enterprise whole in its aim and to be separated from every other moral investigation. (Groundwork 4:392)” Seeking for this supreme principle of morality, the ultimate unity, Kant introduces the principle of categorical imperative(CI). The formulations of the CI are threefold. First, and probably the most straightforward, is the formula of universal law: “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.(G 4:421)” Second, is the formula of
Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples. According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on.
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.
The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
Immanuel Kant was a famous German philosopher (1724-1804). His many philosophical writings influenced large population from all over the world. Even today, his works still form a major point of reference in research carried out in the modern world. His writings had a strong base such that they brought a new dimension in religion, law and history. Although all his writings were popular but Metaphysics of Morals was very influencing. Kant argued that our desires and emotions are categorically imperative, which means that they are conscience driven. His philosophy is closely related to the golden rule. It which states that an individual should always act in accordance to the outcome that will give him/her the best outcome, while Kant’s categorical imperative rule argues that actions must be universal for them to be classified as either moral or immoral. Through Kant’s categorical imperative we can distinguish between our
In class when we had the conversation about chapter two of Immanuel Kant’s Grounding of Morals, we had discussed the imperatives. The imperatives are broken down into two sections, hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative each having different meanings.
Legal categorical imperative is based on a sense of duty and can be summarized as follows: the act is moral only if it is done only with respect to the moral law. This is Kant who develops a number of fundamental principles of the rule of law: freedom and independence of each member of society as a human
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
Long ago, scholars of Kantian ethics realized that the formula of the universalization of maxims, in essence, represented a peculiar form of expression of the golden rule. Its origin goes back to the words of the Jewish preacher Hillel, who lived a century before Christ. When asked how he would briefly express all the wisdom of the Talmud and the Torah, he said: "Do not do to the other what you do not want them to do to you." This prohibitive imperative represents a clear and evident example of the universal criterion that was proclaimed in different ancient cultures. In its positive form it was presented in the Gospel of St. John: "Act with others as you would have them behave with you."
This paper attempts to show that Kant’s analysis of moral worth is shallow because it does not assign worth on moral endeavours that occur from arguably good motivations. Kant’s criteria revolve around the claim that actions possess moral worth only when we do them for duty itself. I will demonstrate that this is problematic because true moral worth depends on bringing about goodness for other’s sakes, so we should derive inspiration from good willed consequences. I will respond on behalf of Kant that consequential maxims are flawed because consequences can occur due to reasons foreign to our will, so the actions produced from this maxim may not possess unconditional moral worth. Nevertheless, I will reply that contingencies cannot diminish
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.