Categorical Imperative Analysis

The Categorical Imperative is a philosophical idea that has some important main ideas. The first one is that one must act as if the maxim that you are following is a universal law (if everyone else did it), secondly one must never treat a person as a way to achieve your goal. The idea of the Categorical Imperative was conceived by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived from 1724 to 1804 (Rolff). Kant, famous for his other writings in metaphysics, aesthetics, and epistemology, was no amateur in the philosophical world of time, also contributing ideas to political science. In this paper, I will summarize the portion of the article in Reason and Responsibility by Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau that carries Kant’s most important work

on the Categorical Imperative, provide an analysis of the theory including my own opinion, look at counter-arguments and objections to Kant’s theory, and then conclude the paper.
The article that I will be referencing derives from the course’s textbook. Extending a little over three pages, Kant’s section is densely packed and filled with knowledge to be gained by an introspective reader. Before an actual summarization of the section starts, the word “maxim”, which the Categorical Imperative extensively uses, must be defined. According to the textbook, the word “maxim” is: “a subjective principle of acting, and must be distinguished from the objective principle, namely the practical law. (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 593)” The difference between the two is that the former contains the reason and practical rule that the actor themselves are acting upon, whereas the latter applies to all actors, and the principle in which the actor ought to act or an “imperative” (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 593).
The first half the section, details and introduces the Categorical Imperative. The first paragraph says that there are two types of imperatives: a hypothetical, and a categorical one. The hypothetical imperative “represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something someone wills (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 593).” In other words, Kant describes the hypothetical imperative as what someone would do to achieve what they want or desire. The categorical imperative on the other hand is “represented an action as objectively necessary to itself, without reference to the other end. (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 593)” In his first in-depth reference to the Categorical Imperative, Kant refers to his theory of evaluating actions not as a way of looking at the consequences of an action, but at the action of itself. This itself is part of a bigger picture of a conflict of two philosophical schools of thoughts between the consequentialists and the deontological. Those who follow the deontological rally behind the categorical imperative, while consequentialists counter in the former. The rest of the section refers to both of these moral systems, and goes further in depth to help the reader to understand what they are and what each moral system purports. Making sure to state each as a moral system, as to eliminate confusion, and introduces the reader to the important word maxim that both systems revolve around. Maxim was defined before in this paper and Kant uses the word to help define the two imperatives and what they state.
Kant then talks about acting as if the maxim would become universal law. If the actor who is acting out the maxim would be okay if that said maxim would become universal law than it would be right to act out the maxim. However, if the actor does not wish such maxim to become universal law, than that actor should not be acting that maxim. Applying this to a certain number of scenarios over the next page, Kant wonderfully defends his theory in different scenarios. The first scenario is detailing a person who wonders if committing suicide is moral, but then comes to the realization that if a universal law of nature detailing that suicide was moral, than humanity would be okay with destroying life. Such universal law would then not benefit humanity at all, short term or long term. The second scenario details another actor questioning if it is moral to borrow money and lie about his ability to pay it back. Seeing such as being a universal law of nature as contradicting itself, Kant states that such law also cannot be consistent with itself. Other scenarios are applied, such as a person who picks leisure over actually using a talent, and another who does not help someone in their time of need. The rest of the article deals with Kant discussing how people must not be seen as a means to an end, but rather an end themselves. In this way, he states that it is immoral to manipulate a person to achieve a goal of yours (Feinberg and Shafer-Landau 593). This refers back to the division in philosophers of either consequentialist or deontological ethics by including that important detail on manipulating people. Why consequentialists believe that it would not be immoral to manipulate people given that the actor’s reason was moral, people who follow deontologicalism believe that it is wrong and immoral no matter what the reason is to manipulate people. Whether the actor is acting on moral grounds, the action itself is immoral and is therefore wrong.
In response to this, there is a necessary question to always ask someone when talking about philosophy: “Do you agree with such a theory?” Kant’s straining of ethical choices and decisions is hard to disagree with since it is so excellently defended and put into different situations. I would have to state that I agree with Kant’s Categorical Imperative. However, applied to different scenarios of modern day life, the strong and stoic Categorical Imperative tends to come off a little harsh.
One scenario that can be applied is this: A burglar breaks into your house and asks for the location of your children. Now since it is immoral to lie to anyone (that means anyone, from your loving grandmother or Adolf Hitler), you must tell the burglar the location of your children. Seems harsh right? Now, Kant doesn’t describe how honest you have to be with the burglar. For example, you could tell him that they’re somewhere in the house, but not tell him what room they are in. Nonetheless, such a scenario shows how rigid such a system for ethics is and how truly complex ethics is in our everyday lives.
Objections to the Categorical Imperative however, have their due as well. One main criticism is that the whole system applies only to rational agents. Such overlap would exclude animals or non-rational human beings, such as those who are in a vegetative coma or have some form of mental illness (CUNY). The animal exclusion makes sense however, since ethics already is exclusionary to anything un-human, since it has yet to be concluded whether animals can have an system for ethics.
Another objection is that the system cannot differentiate between duties.

A duty can either be a perfect duty or something that we are obliged to do all the time, or an imperfect duty (something we should do as often as possible but can not always be expected to do) (CUNY). The Categorical Imperative cannot differentiate between two perfect duties, for example, there would be no difference between lying and killing, both are seen as immoral actions and it does not matter if one is “worse”, they are both evenly bad. The Categorical Imperative also cannot differentiate between a perfect and imperfect duty. A perfect duty would be something such as killing, and an imperfect duty would be loving someone. While both are extremely different, one being encouraged while the other is highly persecuted, the Categorical Imperative cannot tell the difference between these two (CUNY). Such a lack of differentiation can be difficult to swallow, given that in our society nowadays, we differentiate between two crimes. A burglar most likely will not be imprisoned for the same length as someone who committed a first-degree murder. Many people will find the inability to differentiate or the rigidity of the Categorical Imperative cold-blooded or scientific, but that’s the purpose of the Categorical Imperative.

The Categorical Imperative is a fascinating subject, and I have learned a lot of it by researching it. While it may have its difficulties, all philosophical-related subjects always find an objection pinned to them. And while it may be hard to swallow, I would have to say I agree with Immanuel Kant on most of it, but I find that it should be fixed to be able to differentiate between

duties.