The Categorical Imperative and the Problem of Truth
Kant’s argues that his Categorical Imperative (CI) or, more properly, his multiple versions of the CI are universal in the sense that they apply to everyone at all times. If the CI actually is universal in this sense, it fulfills one of the major traits necessary for a moral principle (Pojman 7). The vagueness of the CI, however, makes its universalizability hard to assess. To simplify the issue, this paper will examine Kant’s response to Benjamin Constant’s objections to telling a murderer the truth. That examination will expose how the CI falls short of its claim as a universal principle through inevitable contradiction and, working from Kant’s own strategy of consequence-based reasoning,
…show more content…
Kant argues that a lie makes you potentially liable for the consequences or your lie, while truth telling cannot be punished (“Lie” 2). Part of what makes this argument so odd is that it seems to argue for truth telling on consequentialist grounds, rather than the pure obligation to duty he claimed to be the source of moral action. Essentially, he’s saying to tell the truth so you won’t be prosecuted. By justifying in this way, he also opens the door for judging the CI on similar contingent …show more content…
Michael J. Sandel makes such an argument by suggesting that misleading truths meet the requirements of the CI and the perfect duty to tell the truth (133). He also notes that Kant himself employed such a strategy when giving a promise not to write anything more that criticized Christianity (134). This position leaves much to be desired.
Although it does appear to conform to the letter of the CI and the duty to truth telling, it does so by effectively gutting the intended spirit of the CI. The apparent maxim this position generate is, “Perform a verbal end-run around moral laws you find inconvenient.” It seems doubtful that such a maxim could survive rigorous scrutiny under the CI’s universalization test.
The categorical imperative cannot be applied universally by all people in all situations. As the analysis of the murderer asking about an intended victim shows, the person answering the question will be forced to violate the categorical imperative with a lie or the truth to the murderer. By employing Kant’s own strategy of consequence-based reasoning in terms of law, it becomes equally apparent that the CI does not universalize across different legal systems without requiring maxims that cannot survive the universalization
Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
The philosophical concept of a Categorical Imperative by Kant provides a standard of evaluating the motives of an action. In this case we can use Categorical Imperative to judge Susan’s action and why she deserves to be punished for the things she did twenty-three years ago. Categorical Imperative stands for the moral principles that are universalized across all rational beings. Immanuel Kant defines CI in three ways. First, he states that an action is wrongful if not all rational beings can follow. Clearly, Susan Forest's action cannot be universalized because she pla...
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 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 ...
In an attempt to justify Kant’s argument that there is a possibility that the person who is hiding found a way out therefore lying could in fact kill the victim and telling the truth will save him we will analyze a counterpoint. What if Kant is wrong, what if the victim logically assumes that they will be safe; therefore they do not try to find a way out of the house. If the host lies and calls the police they can find the murderer and arrest him, but if the host tells the truth the murderer would come in and possibly kill both people and then leave and there would be no justice for those deaths. Or even worse, they come in and kill the victim and leave the host. Anyone would feel guilt for letting that happen, and while Kant says that there would be no blame, and that the host did what is morally right, they would not feel that way and they would blame themselves. Kant could not argue this possibility, and while he may say that there would be no blame on the person, that is not how most people would rationalize the
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
With different views on when it is OK to lie, the people continue to debate. But personally, I respect Kant’s views on the idea that lying is bad. Lying weakens the purpose to serve justice, destroys the liars’s dignity, and messes up the records. But I think that rare situations justify lies. I believe lies to save someone's life or just to protect someone from a big danger is the only type of lie that is justified. Those situations are the only times I think it is OK to lie. It might seem that lying to get yourself out of trouble is a situation that makes the lie justified. But I think that is a selfish reason for your own good and that people are thinking less about the society and more about their own good. Lying to get out of trouble is one of those many lies that are not justified.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
He states that in no case should you lie (Bennett 2). What Kant focuses on is deontology, this focuses on duty-based ethics. What duty-based ethics consists of is, doing what you should do for the right reasons, your moral obligations (Bennett 2). Sometimes people will do something they know is right to do but, for the wrong reasons. Someone may save someone’s life because they know they will get money out of it while they should be doing it to save that person with or without a reward. Kant believes that lying is wrong and immoral for anyone in any case, no excuses. Kant believes in a good will (Bennett 5). He believes that happiness cannot be achieved through a bad will. A good will must consist of truthfulness, doing the right thing and doing it because you care to help. Kant believes that along with having a good will, you should be morally good. Being “morally good” has to do with following the moral law. Under any circumstance, a person should never corrupt the moral law (Bennett 2). Everyone should live their life knowing and living by this moral law, never making mistakes and always making the right decisions for the right reasons. With the scenario given, telling a small lie to a friend, Kant believes that lying is against the moral law. Bentham wanted to optimize happiness, in that case lying was the answer. Whereas, Kant says that people deserve more than that, each person deserves to know the truth and should
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
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.
In what he is saying right here, Kant is talking about how when we make certain choices like lying to get out of being in trouble. That is not a moral motive but an immoral one. I think of it like this… Every choice you make, you make out of
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.