The Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant)

Deontology

The Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant)

Lessons

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative: A Critical Evaluation

Moral theory

Recently added to the site

Information: This article introduces the central ideas and themes of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Key terms

Teleological ethics: An act is deemed to be right or wrong on the basis of the consequences/outcome of doing it.
Deontological ethics: An act is deemed right or wrong independent of the consequences, and is done because one has as duty to do it.

Introduction

The categorical imperative is something we are fundamentally required to do irrespective of how we feel about doing it, and even if others around us are telling us to do something completely different. In other words, we must always do this. The categorical imperative is also a priori, which means it will always be and have always been morally good. As such, we have a duty to recognise (and accept) its moral validity (and finality). This means that the categorical imperative is not 'good' on the basis of any effects (or consequences) it might produce, or even because someone (or something) else tells us it is good to do it. It is simply good in itself - and that is all!

A rational (and reasonable) morality

Copyright Stephen A Richards The philosopher who is most well-known for his discussion of the categorical imperative, is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant was a German philosopher, who in his moral theory is considered a Deontologist. This is largely because he believed there were certain things one always had a 'duty' to always do, irrespective of the consequences of doing them. For example, he believed people should always tell the truth. He also believed it was important to find out what our 'moral duty' is, and that this could be done using cold hard logic (reason).

Kant believed we can acquire knowledge of the categorical imperative, when we begin to question and reflect on the nature of morality.

Kant separated reason into 'theoretical reason' (which covers things such as math and logic), and 'practical reason', which is the basis for discovering moral truth. Kant believed practical reason was superior to theoretical reason, because only this had the ability to give us knowledge as to how we should live. Kant also held that practical reason was grounded in a sense of ought. In others words, through a careful consideration and evaluation of choices, people could come to realise what their moral duty was, and do it. Thus by working out what we 'ought' to do, we can being to understand what we should and must always do. This also means that it is logically impossible for practical reason to lead people to have a sense of 'ought' about something they cannot, or should not do.

Kant believed that acting morally was (and should be) a difficult thing to do, especially as often we feel like doing something else. This might imply that for Kant, doing the right thing may involve us acting in a somewhat 'emotionally detached' manner.

Something to think about: Why do people who say they know smoking is bad for them, often find it hard to quit? Also, having acknowledged that smoking is bad for them, is it then wrong for them to continue to smoke?

Kant also argued that 'moral truth' was something beyond the realm of human experience, and that we cannot rely on our senses in order to learn what this is. For example, we cannot rely on what makes us happy to be a reliable guide for what counts as 'good'. This means that first and foremost for Kant, moral truths are a priori (independent of existence). However, if all knowledge of the 'good' lay beyond our experience, this would never be knowable by us and as such render it useless when trying to determine what we ought to be doing. So moral truths are not only a priori, but also be capable of being known by us in order to find out what it means to do 'good', and also to understand why acting in a certain way is a 'good' thing to do.

The way we come to know what it is 'good' to do, is through reason.

All this means that for Kant, acting morally has two parts to it. On the one hand it involves doing things we might not feel we want to or have been told we should do, yet at the same time it is doing those things it is logically right for us to do. In other words, doing good makes sense - logically! This means that it is only because people mistakenly believe they are doing the right thing, that the world is far from being the Utopia it could be.

'Moral actions, for Kant, are actions where reason leads, rather than follows.' (McCormick M., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Metaphysics, I.E.P.)

The importance of freewill

Kant's stress on the importance of freewill has significantly influenced moral enquiry. Kant believed that true morality was about making real choices (and being allowed to make them). He also believed that making real choices involved choosing to do something, rather than being forced to do it (what he called the 'autonomy of the will'). So importance was freewill to Kant, that he regarded it as one of the three fundamental truths of the universe (the other two being God and Immortality).

Following Kant, modern ethical debate normally begins with the assumption that one needs to have freewill in order to be morally accountable.

R2D2 and C3PO from Star Wars Kant also believed that without true freedom there is no real choice, and that without real choice there is no sense of struggle to do 'good'. Furthermore, without any objective basis for morality, all we are left with are our feelings and desires to do certain things. Yet simply doing something because we feel like doing it, or want to do it (desire) is not necessarily a sound (objective) basis on which to ground morality. To go beyond our feelings and desires, one needs to be faced with a genuine choice to do 'good'. To only do what one feels like doing, or to do something because we have been told to do it (like robots), is for Kant not the true definition of acting morally. This is why he argues that in order to successfully ground morality in 'truth', we need to ground morality in something more than just feelings, laws or commands.

Although one might end up doing 'good' because one felt like doing something, or because one had been instructed to do it, Kant would say this is a form of moral accident, and as such it cannot be counted as a truly moral act. To act in a truly moral way, we must have chosen to do something for ourselves!

Something to think about: If someone is forced at gunpoint to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed, are they to be held responsible for their actions? Have they been free to choose to act in this way, or not?

Hypothetical imperatives

An imperative is something that needs to be done. For instance, a teacher might say to a pupil that it is imperative they do their homework (meaning they must to do it). However, the imperative to do homework is usually grounded in some reason for doing it, for example in order to get good grades or avoid punishment. This means doing homework is actually conditional on a pupil being interested in getting good grades, or wanting to avoid being punished. Of course, if they are not 'motivated' by either of these things, then they no longer have any reason to do their homework.

Kant described any imperative (or command) which is done when certain conditions are present, as a hypothetical imperative. He also held that hypothetical imperatives operate as means to an end, and that only if someone is interested in the end result, will these imperatives have any ability to cause people to act.

Hypothetical imperatives can be identified by the presence of 'if... then' conditions in moral statements (E.g. 'If you want to get good grades, then you have to do your homework').

Kant rejected hypothetical imperatives as a basis for morality, because they cannot apply in every situation. For instance, consider the following statement:

It is wrong to tell lies, because God told us not to!

At first glance this statement might appear to contain an absolute imperative - to always act in a certain way (i.e. we should never lie)! However, it is actually a hypothetical imperative, because lying is deemed wrong for the reason that it is something God has told people not to do. Now although there are many people who would be happy to ground what they consider to be 'good' on the belief that God wills it, the statement 'It is wrong to tell lies, because God told us not to!', is only authoritative provided someone believes God exists. For someone who does not believe in God, there is absolutely no reason why they should pay attention to what people say God has told them to do.

Unlike hypothetical imperatives, the categorical imperative is authoritative under any circumstances.

Something to do: Make a list of FIVE moral principles you believe people should live by, and next to each of these give a reason why people should live according to them. Now think about possible objections people might have to doing those things you have listed, and try to give a further reason why they should still do them. Are these secondary reasons hypothetical imperatives, or are they authoritative in all situations?

The categorical imperative

Unlike hypothetical imperatives, a categorical imperative is something we must always do. In fact, it is our duty to always do it! This means that the categorical imperative is the fundamental, universal and indisputable moral truth of the universe, and as such it is the touchstone for judging whether our actions are good, or not.

One might venture to say that even if there were there no humans left in the universe, the categorical imperative would still be true.

Kant set out and explored his understanding of the categorical imperative in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), in response to two moral questions:

What ought I to do?
What is the highest good (or summum bonum) of humans actions (i.e. their 'end')?

Kant believed that the highest good for humanity, was to live according to the categorical imperative and that this was to do only those things which everyone else could (and should logically) do:

'Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.'

To see how Kant arrived at this understanding of the categorical imperative, let's consider what would happen if people decided that it was okay to tell lies when they saw fit to.

Now although we might say there is nothing wrong if someone tells a lie - say when a person is looking for someone they want to kill and we know where they are hiding - Kant would argue that any telling of lies creates problems. For example, in order for a liar to be believed they operate on the basis that people are telling the truth most of the time. However, if everyone were always telling lies when they saw fit to, then (logically) we would end up with a situation where people would never know if someone was lying to them or not. This would also mean that no one could actually tell lies, as other people would have no reason to believe them -ever! All this means that any act of lying (as far as Kant is concerned), is a logically irrational thing to do! If we want to tell lies, then other people should be allowed to tell lies, but then if everyone else is telling lies... well, you get the picture!

So the categorical imperative is to act in only in ways we would be happy for others to, and underpinning this are two other 'laws':

'Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end.'

'Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends'

Hypothetical imperatives treat people as a means to an end, the categorical imperative does not (and never will). For instance, to say that when it suits me I will tell lies, is putting my needs before others. It is also forgetting that we are all part of a wider community of people, and that we cannot live as we please without due regard and respect for others. Although Kant is adamant that we each have the right to live in any way we see fit to, we should always keep in mind that others have that same right too, and that as a result no-one should ever become a pawn in someone else's 'game of life'.

Summary

So in terms of Kant's categorical imperative, the most logical and rational thing we can do in terms of acting correctly is to think about how our actions will affect those around us, and to only do those things that will not impinge on other people's right to live their own life. It is like looking into a mirror and saying to ourselves, "What would happen if everyone did this?". If we conclude that what we are about to do is not going to impinge on the liberty of others to freely live their life, and it is something that everyone else can (logically) do, then we have a duty to do it. If not, or if we are doing something for personal or emotional gratification/gain, then we do not. This is why Kant said that the categorical imperative will never lead to do something we ought not to do. Ought implies can... and can, implies we should do it!