Hopefully this can help clear up a very central idea of Kant's, and of course if I have misspoken in some way, or you wish to add something else please do!
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Kant's Categorical Imperative
As we all know, we have at long last arrived at Kant (by the way how is Kant not registered as a word?) in class, and we have discovered that he is extremely dense. At any rate, towards the end of class we started discussing a very important idea of Kant's and that is the Categorical imperative. In order to understand it, you must know the terminology Kant uses as well. A maxim is a subjective principle of volition (4:401 or page 14 NOT Roman numerals). A law on the other hand, according to Kant, is a practical objective principle (also found on the same page). To understand an imperative, you must also understand the term Kant uses as a command (of reason). A command is the representation of an objective principle (law) necessary for a will. The formula of this command is called an imperative (24 for both terms). In the ought vs. is debate, imperatives are always on the side of ought. A perfect imperative would mean that the practical objective law would align perfectly with the subjective maxim, or to put more simply, the "ought" and the "is" would be one in the same. Furthermore there are two major distinctions of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical Imperatives, if you can venture a guess, represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means of achieving something one wills. Categorical Imperatives are those which represent actions as objectively necessary of itself not related to another end (25 for both terms). In Kant's well known words, which Professor Harwood told us to write down, he says, "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law" (4:403 or 15). That 7 + 5 = 12 for example would be a categorical imperative, more specifically that would be an apodictically categorical imperative (because it is demonstrably true). The imperative of morality is unconditionally always categorical. An example of this would be if you hear a girl screaming in the middle of a street during the night, you must call for help and not assume that somebody else will call or help out the girl, a phenomenon in psychology known as diffusion of responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is very well-laid out; it is a good explanation.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add to it a bit too, as far as how we can determine the morality of our actions based on Kant's Categorical Imperative. One good example brought up in class was suicide; while we did not discuss it in length with regards to the Categorical Imperative, it is a good example to use when asking about the morality of our actions. Could suicide ever be a moral action? By Kant's Categorical Imperative, no, it never could be. Thinking of suicide in the terms of an action that could be made into a universal law, we must ask "If suicide were to be a universal law, would or could the world still make sense?" Logically speaking, no. If everyone were to commit suicide, it would not only go against our self-preservation, but also our species as a whole would die out. Thus, by Kant's logic, we can determine that suicide is not a moral action because it could not ever logically be applied as a universal law and still allow there to be sense in the world.
For those of you interested in Steven's reference to "diffusion of responsibility," I recommend looking up a murder famous for the ethical, social, and legal questions it provoked for the entire country: the death of Kitty Genovese in Queens, 1964. The event shocked the nation, and is still discussed in ethics and law classes. However, in this country US Courts have repeatedly rejected anything like a "duty to rescue," or legal culpability for the refusal to help another person in physically threatening situations (cf. Yania v. Bigan, 1959).
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Kant would say about this? Remember: Kant collapses the two considerations of morality and legality in his Groundwork, although the considerations which result from implementing the theory in practice may not adhere to your first impression. That is, Kant may seem to imply a moral duty to rescue, although this might not survive the universalizability test--which would make the duty amoral rather than moral or immoral.
We read about that case in psychology actually. In my opinion (though I could be wrong), I believe Kant would say that the people who witnessed the murder would have a duty to step in. Stepping in in a case like this would not only be a moral duty but also a duty to do something lawful (since it is against the law to kill). However, they assumed someone else would do something about it and did nothing. By doing this they rejected their duty and seemed to follow more of their inclination (they would rather not be the one to have to deal with it).
ReplyDeleteI've looked at that case too, with regards to the duty to help laws I think Kant would have opposed them. I think he would say that it is impossible to predict accurately every situation in which a person could intervene and thus any legal code would not be able to address all of these situations. He would certainly however say that we have a moral duty to rescue so to be honest I'm uncertain as to how he would settle the issue.
ReplyDeleteI think Kant would say that the people who witnessed the murder or heard Genovese's cries for help had a duty to do something - whether that be step in themselves or call the cops. We also have a duty to protect ourselves. So if by stepping in we would be endangering ourselves, we would also have a duty to protect ourselves. This wouldn't give us a right to kill the perpetrator, but it would give us license to fight back if necessary. Because we're supposed to act in such a way that the maxim of our actions could be made into universal law, those people that were suspicious that something was going on had a duty to Genovese, themselves, and the human race as a whole to do something about it.
ReplyDeleteIf you apply what Laurie said to Locke I would argue that it would be appropriate to kill the perpetrator because it would be safe to assume our life was in danger and we are able to take the law into our own hands in this case.
ReplyDeleteI've read about that case before [big surprise, in psychology of all places! gasp!], and as well, I feel Kant would say that every individual aware of the situation had an ethical duty to help Kitty. And yet no one did, which is a display of inclination taking priority over duty. [Psychological analysis of this refers to this as the passing on of responsibility, in which case one person assumes that yes, they should help the girl, but that there are so many others present that someone else will obey that duty and help her in the end. Kant would greatly disapprove of this.]
ReplyDeleteFunny too, this exact case was mentioned in the Boondock Saints in which a preacher is setting the stage of Kitty's situation, and concludes the speech with the quote:
"We must fear evil men and deal with them accordingly, but what we must truly guard against, what we must fear most is the indifference of good men."
While not exactly following Kant's ideology, I feel it still enforces the idea of every moral man's obligation to duty. In which case, those that are indifferent have gone against their duty based on their inclination to pass the responsibility to another person. [It's odd to think of indifference as an inclination, huh? Hm.]
NB: According to Lindsey's last comment, Kant thinks that every moral man has an obligation to duty. Apparently women are not human, insofar as they are either incapable of or unwilling to have the same obligation.
ReplyDeleteGender pronouns are not just some pc craze that is going to blow over. Until the 20th century when men wrote documents with the word "men" in them, they did not actually mean "humans." They meant "men."
-W.