KANT

Introduction to Philosophy – Kant and the Categorical Imperative

The Scientific Revolution

Following on the heels of Descartes, the Enlightenment was a period of reawakening. It was a time not only of questions, but also of answers.

The Enlightenment was made possible by the Scientific Revolution. Don’t let the name fool you, it didn’t happen overnight. The Scientific Revolution took nearly a hundred fifty years. Basically, it was the scientific disproval and eventual rejection of Thomism. It began with the publication of two groundbreaking books in the same year, 1543.

Copernicus “On the Motion of Heavenly Bodies” (1543)
Vesalius’ “On the Fabric of the Human Body” (1543)

As you may have guessed from the titles of these books, both influenced the eventual rejection of the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and that physical illness is caused by an imbalance of bile or bodily humors.

Later, other books would be published that would reinforce the rejection of Thomism. Modern science, including astronomy, physics, anatomy and biology were born with the publication of these books.

Johannes Kepler “Harmony of the Worlds” (1619)
William Harvey “An Anatomical Exercise on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Animals” (1628)
Galileo “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (1632)
Isaac Newton’s “"Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" or simply Principia (1687)

The Enlightenment
The eighteenth century witnessed the birth of what is often called The Enlightenment. It was a time when human reason was seen as the ultimate source for legitimate thought. Reason, rather than simply faith or tradition, was the authority to which philosophers made an appeal. Dorinda Outram provides a good example of a standard, intellectual definition of the Enlightenment:
“Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.”

It is no surprise, then, that in this same century the American Revolution (1776) and the French Revolution (1789) occurred. Both were based on the rational principles of philosophers like Locke, Berkeley, Rousseau, Hume and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

Amidst the glorification of human reason in the Enlightenment stands the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. You may remember Kant as the one who offered the popular critique of the Ontological Argument. Well that was not his only contribution to western philosophy. He wrote some voluminous tomes on epistemology, art and religion. Many scholars debate whether Kant was a theist, and in fact, some claim he was a Christian. Alas, no one knows for sure. Kant remains an enigmatic figure in the history of philosophy. It is said that when the German students and faculty of the University of Konigsberg would file in for morning chapel, at the last moment before entering the door of the chapel, Kant would ritually step aside and not attend.

In the spirit of the Enlightenment, Kant desired a basis for morality anchored in rationality. He believed that Reason was the only reliable basis for morality. All other reasons for doing good could be perverted and were therefore untrustworthy. For example, while Love often motivates people to do good, and yet, it can also motivate others to do harm. The same goes for reverence for God. How many good and harmful works have perpetuated throughout history in the name of religion?

Kant believed that God had created humans with (a) a rational soul, and (b) free will. Thus, if humans possess a rational soul and free will, then there must be some rational, universal standard for morality. By creating the condition for rationality and free choice, God also must have created the condition for a universal moral standard to be (a) known and (b) followed. A rule or maxim that holds everyone morally responsible to do the right thing- regardless of their personal experiences, emotions, desires or inclinations. For Kant, this universal standard is good will, or perhaps more precisely, a good will.

“Nothing in the world- indeed nothing even beyond the world- can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will.” Kant, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”

For Kant, then, a good or pure will is an intention to act in accordance with a universal moral law. When I choose to do something, I also will to do it. I use my rational, free will. To act out of good will is to do X because it is right to do X, and for no other reason. Love for God, obedience to a divine will, fear of punishment, love for another, sympathy, a desire for peace- all of these are, according to Kant, irrational reasons for doing good. Also, the consequences of actions cannot be the reason for doing good. Consequences are as untrustworthy as intentions. You can never really know the consequences of a moral choice, so this uncertainty makes consequences an unreliable standard for moral goodness.

One must do good from a sense of duty to the moral law. It is not enough for Kant that you happen to do good which accords with the moral law. In order for your action to be considered morally praiseworthy, that is, actually morally good, you must commit an act because you know that you are fulfilling your duty to the moral law.

So what then, according to Kant, is this universal moral law to which we all must do our duty? If it is rational, then, it must be accessible (via human reason) to all persons, regardless of their place in history, culture, religion or personal experience. Everyone must be rationally accountable to this universal moral law.

Kant called this universal moral law, the Categorical Imperative.

“Act only in accordance to that maxim by which by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Or put more simply, whenever you are about to act, consider whether you would want your action to become the standard for how everyone else should act. If you’re considering stealing some money, consider whether you would want the world to follow your example. Would you say to the whole world, “Thou shall steal”?

The Categorical Imperative asks you to universalize your personal actions. That is, act like your own actions are the universal standard for moral behavior. Everyone’s watching, waiting to see what you’re going to do. And whatever you do- they’re going to do the same.

So why is it called the Categorical Imperative? The Categorical Imperative is categorical in that it commands you to unconditionally to act from duty. It does not take into account other categories for reasons why you should do good, like personal desires or consequences. It is an imperative in that it commands you to do something, i.e. fulfill your duty to the moral law.

It should be noted that for Kant the Categorical Imperative is a moral law within. It is not learned, but rather intuited. It is available to all, in fact, it must be available to all or else it cannot be a universal moral law.

Advantages to the Categorical Imperative

A good thing about the Categorical Imperative is that it attempts to remove morality from the sphere of subjective human experience. Considering all the moral conflict in the world caused by differences in religion, culture and personal experience, it’s nice to think that there is a universal moral law that everyone could follow, and that if they did, the world might be a more peaceful place.

And even though Kant maintained that God created the conditions for rationality and free will, it seems like it would be pretty simple to “drop” God from the equation. Wouldn’t it suffice for an atheist to simply say that humans are rational animals, and this rationality dictates that we follow order to follow the Categorical Imperative?

Criticisms of the Categorical Imperative

Kant wrote voluminous volumes. He was very prolific. He wrote the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Judgment, and the Critique of Practical Reason. Let’s face it, the guy liked to critique. And yet, for all his writing and all his critiques, Kant never gave a practical example of how this universal moral law might be universally applied. The closest he ever came was to suggest that one should never tell a lie. But remember, Kant didn’t want to be specific. He didn’t want another ‘Ten Commandments’. He wanted a universal formula that would yield universal moral goodness, regardless of the intentions or consequences. But is such a formula possible?

Remember how Socrates’ used negative evidence to undermine others’ arguments? Let’s see if we can do the same with Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Imagine this scenario. You are hiding Jews from the Nazis. Soldiers show up at your house and ask you if you are hiding anyone. Do you lie? If you tell the truth then people will be murdered. But maybe you should lie to save your own skin. Won’t you be punished too? So what if you could tell the truth, turn them over to the Nazis, and not get punished? You could save yourself. Would you tell the truth in order to fulfill your duty to the moral law? Or would you lie in an attempt to save innocent lives from injustice?

Now remember, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a formula. It does not prescribe or forbid any specific action, even telling a lie. It commands you to act so that you could will that your action become a universal moral law. That is, it commands you to universalize your particular action. But what exactly does this mean, when applied to an actual moral dilemma?

What exactly are you universalizing? Are you universalizing telling a lie? If so, then you should not lie to the Nazis and you should turn over those you are hiding. Or are you universalizing telling a lie in order to prevent injustice? If so, then you should lie to the Nazis in order to save those hiding in your house.

Remember, according to Kant, the consequences of an action should never be considered a factor in making a moral choice. This suggests that you should not take into consideration the injustice towards those hiding in your house. You are not responsible for the consequences of your action. You are not responsible for the Nazis or their mistreatment of the Jews. Your first obligation, that is, your primary duty is to the moral law. You must not lie, for in so doing, you make lying a universal maxim by which others should live.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative is like an abstract logical formula for moral goodness. As long as the formula is stated in logical symbols, it can be computed easily. On a chalkboard in a classroom, moral computation is as simple and straightforward logical computation; either true or false. But as soon as you replace those abstract symbols with actual words, with an actual moral dilemma, predictable computation becomes unpredictably complicated.

Alas, if moral dilemmas existed only on classroom chalkboards, then Kant’s Categorical Imperative would offer a sufficient rubric for making moral choices. But it doesn’t take a philosopher to know that where morality matters most is outside the classroom. It’s time to put the chalk down…