The 18
th-Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804) presents a criterion of moral obligation,
which he calls the
categorical imperative.
Kant's account of morality fits squarely into the
deontological
tradition and is found in three principal books:
The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785),
The Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and
The Metaphysics of Morals (1798).
Kant's writings indicate that he was aware of the moral traditions
that went before him, such as virtue theory which bases morality
on good character traits, and consequentialist accounts which base
morality solely on the consequences of actions.
In all of his ethical writings, Kant rejects these traditional
theories of morality and argues instead that moral actions are based
on a
"
supreme principle of morality"
which is objective, rational, and freely chosen:
the categorical imperative.
Kant's clearest account of the categorical imperative
is in the
Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Morality consists of choosing only those actions that conform
to the categorical imperative.
In Section One of the Foundations, Kant argues against traditional
criteria of morality, and explains why the categorical imperative can
be the only possible standard of moral obligation.
He begins with a general account of willful decisions.
The function of the human will is to select one course of action
from among several possible courses of action.
Our specific willful decisions are influenced by several factors,
such as one's emotional state,
the possibility for immediate emotional gratification,
or what is best in the long run.
Kant argues that in moral matters the will is ideally influenced only
by rational considerations, and not by subjective considerations
such as one's emotions.
This is because morality involves what is necessary for us to do
and only rational considerations can produce necessity.
The rational consideration which influences the will must be a
single principle of obligation, for only principles can be purely
rational considerations.
Also, the principle must be a command (or imperative) since morality
involves a command for us to perform a particular action.
Finally, the principle cannot be one that appeals to the consequences
of an action, such as the joy I would receive from watching television;
for, appeals to consequences involve emotional considerations.
The only principle which fulfills these requirements is the
categorical imperative which dictates the universalizability of our actions:
"
act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law."
Morality, then, consists of choosing only those actions that conform
to the categorical imperative.
The supreme principle of morality is a categorical imperative
since it is not conditional upon one's preferences
In Section Two Kant explains key terms, presents different formulations
of the categorical imperative, and illustrates the categorical imperative
with examples of specific immoral acts.
He begins by distinguishing between types of imperatives.
Imperatives
in general are commands that dictate a particular course of action, such as
"
you shall clean your room."
Hypothetical imperatives
are commands that depend on the preference for a particular end,
and are stated in conditional form, such as,
"
If I want to lose weight, then I should eat less."
In this case, the command to eat less hinges on the previous preference
to lose weight.
There are two types of hypothetical imperatives.
Problematic-hypothetical imperatives involve rules of skill, based on
preferences that vary from person to person, such as
"
if you want to be a doctor then you should go to
medical school."
Assertoric-hypothetical imperatives, by contrast, involve rules
of prudence based on the preference everyone has to be happy,
such as
"
if you want to be happy,
then you should go skydiving."
None of these hypothetical imperatives, however, are
moral imperatives,
since the command is based on subjective considerations that are not absolute.
A
categorical imperative, by contrast,
is an absolute command, such as
"
you shall treat people with respect,"
which is not based on subjective considerations.
Thus, the supreme principle of morality is a categorical imperative
since it is not conditional upon one's preferences.
| Term
| Definition
| Example
|
| Imperatives |
Commands that dictate a course of action. |
"You will clean your room." |
| Hypothetical Imperatives |
Commands that depend on a preference for a particular end. |
"If I want to pass the test, then I should study." |
| Problematic Hypothetical Imperatives |
Commands that involve rules of skill based on preferences
that vary from person to person. |
"If you want to be a doctor,
then you should go to medical school." |
| Assertoric Hypothetical Imperatives |
Commands that involve rules of prudence based on the
preference that everyone has to be happy. |
"If you want to be happy, you should eat chocolate." |
| Catagorical Imperative |
Commands that are absolute. |
"You shall treat all people with repsect." |
Kant continues by describing the sources of the above types of
imperatives. His discussion uses four technical terms:
| Term
| Definition
| Example
|
| Analytic Propositions |
Propositions that are true by definition. |
"All wives are women." |
| Synthetic Propositions |
Propositions that are not true by definition. |
"All women are wives." |
| A Posteriori Knowledge |
Knowledge attained through the senses. |
"The sky is blue." |
| A Priori Knowledge |
Intuitive knowledge attained without the senses. |
"Five plus five is ten." |
Kant argues that problematic-hypothetical imperatives are analytic or true
by definition, such as, "If you want to be a doctor, then you should go
to medical school." Assertoric-hypothetical imperatives are less clear
since the concept of happiness varies so greatly, as in the statement,
"If you want to be happy, then you should go skydiving." However, Kant
believes that even this statement is true by definition since if we fully
understand happiness, we will also know the means to happiness. Finally,
categorical imperatives are synthetic a priori, since the statement
"you shall treat people with respect," is not true by definition, and is
not known by means of the senses. Kant's point is that the categorical
imperative involves a unique type of knowledge that is intuitive,
yet informative.
| Term
| Type
| Notes
|
| Problematic-Hypothetical Imperative |
Analytic |
True by definition |
| Assertoric-Hypothetical Imperative |
Analytic |
Less clear as the definition of happiness is variable |
| Catagorical Imperative |
Synthetic A Priori |
Unique type of knowledge that is intuitive yet informative |
In view of this background, Kant presents the single categorical
imperative of morality: act only on that maxim by which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.
Although there is only one categorical imperative, Kant argues that
there can be four formulations of this principle:
| Name
| Imperative
|
| Formula of the Law of Nature |
Act as if the maxim of your action were to be come through
your will a universal law of nature. |
| Formula of the End Itself |
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 always at the same
time as an end. |
| Formula of Autonomy |
So act that your will can regard itself at the same
time as making universal law through its maxims. |
| Formula of the Kingdom of Ends |
So act as if you were through your maxims a
law-making member of a kingdom of ends. |
According to Kant, each of these four formulations will produce the
same conclusion regarding the morality of any particular action. Thus,
each of these formulas offers a step by step procedure for determining
the morality of any particular action
The formula of the law of nature tells us to take a particular action,
construe it as a general maxim, then see if it can be willed consistently
as a law of nature. If it can be willed consistently, then the action
is moral. If not, then it is immoral. To illustrate the categorical
imperative, Kant uses four examples that cover the range of morally
significant situations which arise. These examples include committing
suicide, making false promises, failing to develop one's abilities,
and refusing to be charitable. In each case, the action is deemed
immoral since a contradiction arises when trying to will the maxim as a
law of nature. The formula of the end itself is more straight forward:
a given action is morally correct if when performing that action we do
not use people as a means to achieve some further benefit, but instead
treat people as something which is intrinsically valuable. Again, Kant
illustrates this principle with the above four examples, and in each
case performing the action would involve treating a person as a means,
and not an end.
