Kants CI
Explain what Kant meant by the "Categorical Imperative" Kant came up with the Categorical Imperative he verifiably meant it to be different to the hypothetical Imperative, naturally first one must define the two. An Imperative is a command or an order. so a Hypothetical Imperative is an order that if you follow a certain outcome might/could happen in the future, an example of this is "if i want to lose weight, i ought to diet" or "if i want to go to heaven, i ought to be good" they are things that most likely will work but there is a chance it might fail. Categorical means clear/direct or absolute, so a Categorical Imperative is an order that is absolute and cannot be subjective. an example of a Categorical Imperative is "Do not kill!" or "Stealing is wrong!" they are things that need no justification, they just are. Kant said "All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically... if the action would be good simply as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; but if the action is represented as good in itself ... then the imperative is categorical." he meant that to perform a categorical imperative you must do it irrespective of the outcome, the argument is therefore deontological.
Is Kant's theory practical in the real world? The categorical imperative is probably the only solid set of moral principles around, they are a set of rules that apply to everyone acting on the interests of all moral agents. Kant suggests that all humans are equal and so deserve the same amount of moral protection. Kant states that, whiles we are inclined to do what benefits us personally, we should make moral decision because of duty. also Kant's theory does not describe how to over come conflict in duty, say if a hospitals budget was at a fixed amount, there would come a point when there was more patients than money and so who gets what treatment? So Kant's theory would be great in a world that was not full of power hungry bureaucrats, a perfect world if you will. Treat humans as ends in themselves is Kant's second principle, it means that a maxim cannot be used if it involves using other humans as a means to an end or exploit or enslave them. the good points that Kant's theory brings are that firstly he distinctly states that there is a difference between duty and inclination. but in the real world it does not quite live up to standerds, i doubt that it is Kant's fault i would lay the blame on the greedy exploitative nature of some upstanding citizens. but as we all know temptation will sometimes get the better of us and we will go for what will benefit us. the last principle is act as if you live in a kingdom of ends, this means that any maxims made must assume that everyone treats everyone else as ends in themselves, we cannot make a maxim that relied on someone else being immoral, for example "i may lie because others lie". sounds to good to be true? well it could be. Kant also states that you cant promote happiness if that happiness undermines someone else's happiness and therefore cannot sacrifice the minority to benefit the majority. Kant states that all humans are equal and therefore deserve the same moral protection as each other he also states that no human can be enslaved or exploited but if this is true then employment would go down the drain, in our capitalist, trying not to sound too Marxist, world the whole class system is based on exploitation of a lower class. these principles were to help you figure out what was morally right, and according to Kant once you knew what was right it was your "Duty" to act upon it Universal law is in itself a categorical imperative that states "do not act on any maxim that cannot be universalized" or in other words any moral law i by which you want to live must be able to be applied to every situation and moral agent universally.
Common topics in this essay:
Kant Duty,
Categorical Imperative,
Hypothetical Imperative,
categorical imperative,
kant's theory,
Explain Kant,
equal deserve,
humans equal deserve,
act live kingdom,
treat humans themselves,
humans equal,
moral protection,
treat humans,
hypothetical imperative,
real world,
stealing wrong,
act live,
|
Acceptance Essays
