Kant

The Categorical Imperative and Morality When we consider moral philosophy, Immanuel Kant almost immediately comes to mind. He is the predominant advocate for deontological ethics. However, I do not believe that his work is entirely valid or justified as a moral philosophy. This should be what this debate revolves around. The Categorical Imperative is deontological normative ethical theory that suggests that threw the formations of maxims one can arrive at a moral law. Ethically speaking, this theory has many pitfalls but I will highlight three specific issues that can be used as evidence to show that Kant doesn’t have an ethical leg to stand on. Normative Ethical TheoriesIn general, normative ethical theories tell us what we should do. In more simplistic terms one wants a normative theory to tell them “What should I do? ”. Any theory that fails to do this can be seen as incomplete and in need of revision. Certainly there are qualifiers for being a normative ethical theory just as other things, such as an attorney or accountant or a science degree. X cannot be called Y if X doesn’t have the essential properties (or the things that make Y) of Y. Kantian theory is supposed to rule out actions (making them permissible or impermissible depending on the corresponding actions) however it doesn’t necessarily rule any in. There are possible cases in which all but one action are ruled impermissible by the categorical imperative. But these are few and far in between. More often Kant’s theory simply says what we shouldn’t do not what we should. I give a brief example: Imagine if a person has promised to pay back a wealthy miser, within a month, a loan of say 2,000 thousand dollars, which he knows that he will be unable to repay on time, but which he will repay eventually. He promised to repay the loan in that amount of time because he would have been unable to get the money if he hadn’t made that promise. He needs the money in order to pay for a vaccine which he will use to save the lives of many underprivileged children, and he has no other means of getting the money in time. Was it wrong of him to make a false promise? Ignoring the intuitive problem this creates for Kantian theory, I would like to make a more subtle point. While Kant would tell us this action is immoral, because it fails the first formulation of making false promises, it doesn’t tell us what he should do. Should he let the children die? We don’t know, because Kant abandons us to speculation. Therefore, Categorical imperative is inadequate as a normative ethical theory. Conflicts Normative ethical theories should also be concerned with what one should do in real life situations. Even if it derives that we cannot make these decisions practically in human life we still should be able to arrive at the conclusion of the argument regardless. For example, Unitarianism tells us “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to promote the reverse of happiness”(John Stuart Mill, Unitarianism) and gives us a complex equation to solve solutions in daily life, even if though it recognizes that this impractical. All ethical theories should have practical application even if the practical application isn’t useful for daily life. Theories cannot ignore states of affairs and refuse to address them. There must be a system of determining the right choices, even if it’s impractical in daily life (It should be noted; when I say practical application I am referring to answering practical questions not its usefulness per se). Another problem with Kant’s ethical theory is that he writes inside a vacuum allowing no room for conflict. A perfect example of this would be stealing for food. Under Kant’s Universality maxim, stealing in order to feed your family is immoral, since applied universality, stealing would result in a great deal of rights infringements. Under Kant’s Humanity maxim, however, you would steal food for your family because you accord them inherent worth. Thus, we can see that in his writings, Kant offers no standard in which to determine which formulation of his categorical imperative to follow. Another conflict that arises out of Kant’s ethical system is that under Kant’s Universality maxim holds we should never kill, since we would not want killing to be a universal occurrence. This means-based determination leaves no room for conflict, however. In some cases, killing cannot be avoided. A contemporary example would be Abortion. Abortion is a complicated issue with many nuances. According to Kant there would be one correct decision. First, the answer is not as simple as yes or no, which would be what Kant would want people to believe; and second, Kant himself would be unable to resolve this issue in regards to a mother whose life is jeopardized by the coming baby. According to Kant, we have the perfect duty not to kill ourselves, yet we also have a perfect duty not to kill. Thus, the categorical imperative cannot resolve conflicts between perfect duties and emergency situations. Internal problems with the Categorical Imperative Kant attributes the categorical imperative as a motive for human behavior, yet claims that it cannot be attached to any sort of feeling. This makes it internally flawed, as T. N. Pelegrinis writes in his 1980 book “Kant’s Conception of the Categorical Imperative and the Will” on page 111: “Kant’s position appears on unsatisfactory for the following reason. He regards the categorical imperative as a motive, but he denies that it can be a feeling or inclination. As the word ‘motive’ is ordinarily used it means feeling or inclination. In denying that it is a feeling or inclination, Kant appears to be contradicting himself. ” Another problem with Kantian theory is that in the first formulation we need to know the motivation in order to apply the rule. However, in most cases we don’t know the motivation of the person and only the action, but this is the primary part of the maxim. On the second formulation, it talks about never treating people as a means to an end. However all that is required by the maxim is the consideration of the other persons interests, one could simply consider and then disregard, the interests of other people. Another issue is that there is no universal motivation, because people seek different ends. Human nature denies the possibility of the imperative. In the book, “Ethics: Theory and Practice” philosophers Manuel Velasquez and Cynthia Rostenkowski argue: “Kant now states that if the categorical imperative is really binding on everyone (as it must be if it is valid) then everyone must be motivated to follow it no matter what desires they happen to have. In other words there must be something that can motivate everyone to follow it in spite of their particular desires. But a subjective end cannot motivate everyone to follow the categorical imperative. ” And the last question that I would ask anyone supporting the Kantian theory why should we even support the Kantian theory. The fact that Kant was very intelligent isn’t an adequate reason to support the Categorical imperative. The first formulation suggests tells us to act on maxims that we can will as universal laws. Even if this wasn’t somewhat subjective and arbitrary, why would one’s ability to will something as a universal law has anything to do with its being the morally right thing to do? What is the connection? The second formulation tells us never to use others. Well, that is a nice thought but why should I think that this is the ultimate standard of morality. It doesn’t seem too plausible that everything this is right and wrong in the world is right and wrong because it does or doesn’t use people as a mere means. For all of the preceding reasons, I honestly cannot see any vote but a negative one this day. Kant has very broad and irreconcilable problems.