The Ethics of Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant was a philosopher from the 1700′s. His scholarly studies range in topic, but his work in ethics and philosophy are probably the most notable. Kant’s ethics are deontological, free from natural influence and solely based on the will of man. He designed the ‘categorical imperative’  in order to test whether an act is moral or immoral.

Kantian ethics are deontological. This means that something is considered to be moral because it adheres to a rule. The opposite is teleological ethics, in which something is considered moral because it produces a certain outcome. Deontological ethics allow for some sort of moral authority, whether that is a god or some sort of natural order. Where Kant’s ethics are deontological, he actually considers the natural order to be irrelevant to ethics as natural orders tend to be subjective or potentially subjective in nature, and could thereby be evil (Jensen, 2009).

Since Kant tosses out all natural things, there must be a universal good from which all morality derives. This is the good will. For Kant’s purposes, the good will is the intention to do something simply because it is right to do so. Kant intentionally uses the word will, because it must be done with intent or will to do right in order to be moral. To do something which is right by happenstance and not with direct intent lacks volition and is therefore immoral, regardless of the act. This is actually a potential defect in his reasoning as it removes the ability of someone who is ignorant to the moral argument from making a moral decision since he is not driven to consider his own will (Kant, 2008).

Kant has a system which can be used to determine the morality of an act. This is called the ‘categorical imperative’ or the ‘principle of universalizibility.’ According to the categorical imperative, one must ask, upon considering an action, if one would will the act to become universalized. That is, if you would will that everyone did X, then it would be considered a moral act, according to Kant (2008).

Kant distinguishes between categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative. An imperative is a command. A hypothetical would mean that the outcome of the act is uncertain, whereas a categorical simply is (Jensen, 2009). For example: hypothetically, if you want a cheeseburger then go to a burger joint and buy one. Categorically, at a burger joint, you buy a cheeseburger. The first statement is hypothetical because it does not have a guaranteed outcome. The second statement is categorical because it is intrinsically right that one would buy a cheeseburger at a burger joint.

One of the most common moral arguments is over abortion. Kant would look for the moral authority on the matter using the categorical imperative. He would form a statement such as, ‘abortion is murder.’ He would not say, “if you have an abortion, then you have committed murder” as that is a hypothetical statement. This statement, in and of itself, does not immediately denote immorality until murder is determined to be immoral. So, Kant would then apply the principle of universalizibility. “Would I will that everyone ought to commit murder?” Since no one would, in right mind, will this it can be determined that abortion is immoral.

Kantian ethics can be applied to all sorts of scenarios. The categorical imperative proves useful, and often prudent, in determining the morality of an act. Even though Kant did not attribute morality to God or to any god, he certainly seems to have found a strain of revelation in the midst of reason.

References

Jensen, J. (2009). Questions that matter L. Miller, (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kant, I. (2008). The metaphysical elements of ethics (T. K. Abbot, Trans.). Rockville, MD: Arc Manor.

The Ethics of Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative