The other being the
categorical imperative stated in Kant’s words as: “Act as if the maxim
(principle) of your action were to become through your will a general natural
law.” (2) The categorical imperative is based on a thought experiment: you have
to imagine what the world would be like if everyone else acted on that
principle. If such a world is conceivable to you, and you would be willing to
live in it, then it is morally permissible. To be moral, Kant believes that the
maxim must be universalizable, that is to say, if everyone could act on it. In
addition, the maxim must be reversible, that is, if you are willing to have
everyone act on it.(2) An example of Kant’s categorical imperative is of one who
borrows money, knowing he cannot pay the loan back, promises to pay it back. He
argues that it is not universalizable nor is it reversible (you could not will
all to act on that maxim). Consequently, says Kant, you cannot act on it. The
categorical imperative is similar to the Golden Rule, which states, “ Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.” However, the thought experiment is
different: put yourself in the other person’s shoes and decide whether you would
want them to do to you what you are about to do to them. If you would be willing
to have that done to you, then it is moral. The difference between the
categorical imperative and the Golden Rule is that the categorical imperative
focuses on the principle, rather than the people, involved. Kant’s theory also
avoids utilitarianism, which would permit lying, murder, stealing, and the like,
if it produces happiness. His theory is for capital punishment(2). Kant writes:
Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its
members- as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island
resolving to separate and scatter through the whole world- the last murder lying
in prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought
to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that
bloodguiltiness may not remain on the people; for otherwise they will all be
regarded as a public violation of justice.(6) There are certain exceptions to
Kant’s categorical imperative, these exist in our duties as human beings. For
example, if we promised to meet someone at a specific time and in doing so many
innocent people would die. Therefore, he wrote “Act in such a way that you
always treat humanity…never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
end.” He called this the, categorical imperative II. This is the idea that what
makes an action right is if it treats people as ends in themselves and not
merely as means.
The decision to the right action is a two-step process: 1.
Determine whether the principle to be acted on is universalizable and
reversible, and 2. Determine that it treats everyone as ends in themselves, not
merely as a means. If the action passes both tests, it is then morally
permissible.(2) The second categorical imperative was written because, under the
premise of the first version, it would be morally permissible to kill many
people. An example of this would be the slaughter of the Jewish community in so
far as the holocaust was concerned. Using the first categorical imperative you
could justify the killings under the premise that a nazi would be willing to
have himself killed if he were Jewish (reversible) and if he is willing to have
everyone act in the same manner (universalizable). However with the inception of
the categorical imperative II, this would not be permissible because it would be
using the Jewish people as a means, and therefore not admissible.(2) The insight
behind the second categorical imperative is that all people are inherently
valuable. The value stems from the fact that they are self-conscious, rational,
and free. These ideas are an outcome of the Critique of Practical Reason (1788).
This freedom was not regard as the lawless freedom of anarchy, but rather as the
freedom of self-government, the freedom to consciously obey the laws of the
universe as revealed by reason. Kant’s ideal world would consist of reason that
would “bind every law giver to make his laws in such a way that they could have
sprung from the united will of an entire people, and to regard every subject, in
so for as he wishes to be a citizen, on the basis of whether he has conformed to
that will.”(4) Kant’s influence on modern times is evident throughout Europe and
much of western thought. His philosophy, particularly as developed by G.W.F.
Hegel, was the backbone of which the structure of Marxism was built. Johann
Fichte, a pupil of Kant, rejected his teacher’s division of the world into
objective and subjective parts and developed an idealistic philosophy of his own
that had a great influence on the 19th-century socialists. One of Kant’s
successors at the University of Konigsberg, J.F. Herbart, incorporated some of
Kant’s ideas in his system of education.(4) Conclusion: I believe Kant to be a
revolutionary thinker because of what he brought to the world of philosophy, the
power of human reason to think objects a priori. Although I find certain ideals
I am conflicted with in his work.
