In the year of 1785 Immanuel Kant publishes his work ‘The Foundations of the Metaphysics
of Morals.’
Contained within it was Kant’s challenge to all those who believed morals to be based
upon no more than anthropological circumstance and preference.
He had a supreme principle up his sleeve, one that would prove once and for all that
moral law is as rational, impartial, and universal as the natural world around us.
This principle he would name the Categorical Imperative, Categorical because it is applied
unconditionally to all those who possess rational wills without reference to any goal that we
may desire to achieve, and imperative because it is a command which is given to all of us,
whether we choose to abide by it or not.
For Clarities sake I think its important that we first endeavor to understand the differences
between The Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives.
When we speak of Hypothetical Imperatives we refer to a command which applies to us
not only because we as human beings are rational, but also because we have consciously willed
a particular end.
In Kant’s view this end must be willed by more than just our emotion and desires to
be categorized as a Hypothetical Imperative.
In other words we cannot only be a passive bystander, but must take an active role.
Of the Hypothetical Imperatives there are two categories; either they are “problematic”
or “assertoric”; which category each falls into entirely depends upon how the end is
willed.
Predominately they fall into the former category, the “problematic”, this is because whether
or not we will them varies from person to person, it is not willed out of necessity,
it is merely a possible end.
For example “if you want to complete a marathon then you should take part in aerobic exercise,”
is a “problematic hypothetical-Imperative” because not all will wish to take part in
a marathon.
As for “assertoric” imperatives, these come about only when and because we will our
own happiness.
Kant believed that this is because rationality cannot issue an imperative if the end is indeterminate,
and the question of whether one can be happy without one thing or another is, and likely
will remain, without definitive answer.
It is characteristic of Hypothetical Imperatives to be true by definition, yes, even the question
of human felicity, thought Kant, is true by definition if one truly understands happiness
and its means.
How these differ from the Categorical Imperative is this that the Categorical Imperative is
an unconditional and absolute rule which applies to all of us as rational beings, not because
we subjectively will some end, but simply because we are rational.
The general formula for the Categorical Imperative, often called the formula of universal law,
is this, to “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law.”
It applies only to moral law because by nature moral law is impartial, universal, and absolutely
rational.
Its one and only function is to be a sort of moral litmus test for these three particular
characteristics.
Kant expressed the Categorical Imperative in several different formulations, each correlating
to a specific facet of human rationality, these formulations are: The Formula of the
Law of Nature, The Formula of the End Itself, The Formula of Autonomy, and The Formula of
the Kingdom of Ends.
And though the first two of these are the most crucial to our understanding, all of
them, thought Kant, would lead us to the same conclusion regarding the morality of any particular
action.
In perhaps the most well-known and important of Kant’s formulations he states to “act
as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”
This is strikingly similar to the formula of universal law, but with one main difference,
it being that through this formula we are to consider whether our maxim could function
as a law of nature and more specifically whether there are contradictions present.
We are simply searching for the rationality of a particular maxim when applied universally,
this formula is not to determine its morality.
Take this example set forth by Kant to help clarify what he means; Say that I borrow money
with the added promise that I will one day return it in full, all the while knowing that
this is a duplicitous statement and that the lender will never again see this money.
The Maxim here would be “whenever I believe myself short of money, I will borrow money
and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done.”
At once a contradiction arises when applied as a universal law; if this action were to
be repeated by all rational beings there could never again be transactions of this kind as
there could be no trust in what the other person is promising.
We see that if this were the case then I would not have been able to make my promise in the
first place.
Through several examples similar to this one two types of contradictions arise, one involving
an internal contradiction within the universal law and the other between the proposed universal
law and a separate inherently rational obligation.
The point here being that if any contradiction should arise once the Maxim in question is
universalized then it has failed the litmus test to pass as a universal law of nature.
Here we have the CI’s second formulation, it tells us to “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.”
It was Kant’s thought that what separated us as human beings from the lower animals
is our rationality, the ability to choose our own path, to change the direction of our
lives if we so choose; it gives us what Kant calls inherent value.
And it is because each human possesses this value that we should treat others as ends
in themselves, and not merely as an instrument in getting whatever it is that our manifold
desires drive us toward.
There are negative and positive components to this formula, the negative tells us to
avoid treating others as means, which in and of itself, Kant thought, is not enough.
We must seek not only to refrain from using those around us as means, but to actively
support them in retaining their dignity as ends, which represents the positive component
of this formula.
Similarly to the formula of the law of nature Kant demonstrates this by four examples, the
first two representing the negative, and the latter two representing the positive.
Kant’s third formulation focuses on our responsibility as rational beings to act in
a manner worthy of our place in the world, he tells us “So act that your will can regard
itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims.”
What we are trying to determine by this formula is whether or not our maxims live up to who
we are, to what we are.
From the second formula we know that Kant views humans as ends in themselves, so it
follows that how he views humanity at large is in a similar manner, that being as a “kingdom
of ends”.
The intention of this formula is to determine whether an individual maxim could pass as
a universal law within this kingdom.
The importance in this formula lies in Kant’s view that our collective moral destiny is
inextricably connected, and with this being the case you should “act as if you were
through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.”
The moral theory of Kant, particularly in the case of the Categorical Imperative, has
played a significant role in the development of the western philosophical tradition.
Many will see this theory and relate it to that golden rule which stands out even to
those not learned in philosophic and religious text.
This is at least partly true, though we must not think of it quite in this way.
As said by Dr. Sugrue it is like the golden rule “dressed up in it’s Sunday best.”
The major difference between the two being that in the case of the Categorical Imperative
one cannot justify any particular action as morally righteous simply because of subjective
preference toward that particular action.
Even if I am well and good with being spit on, that does not morally justify spitting
on another.
With this being said there are complications that the CI presents, and though I will not
be covering criticism in this video, I implore you to check the links I have provided in
the description below if you are interested in what other great names have to say regarding
the CI.
And as with all of Kant’s work, encompassing it within a single video would be nothing
short of miraculous, so look out for more on the works of Immanuel Kant in the future.
If you have found this video to be helpful in understanding this aspect of his moral
philosophy then I would be incredibly grateful if you would like the video and subscribe
to the channel.
And as always, thank you for talking philosophy with me, until next time.