Something About Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant's Categorical Imperative states that there are absolute moral rules which must be followed at all times. The idea of breaking any of these rules for any reason is both immoral and irrational, even if the reason for breaking the rule may have a pleasurable or more desirable consequence.
According to Kant, moral rules are obligations which are not to be questioned but simply followed. These rules are universal, and are to be applied in all occasions requiring their use. For example, the rule, "Do not steal", is often broken out of need for food. There is justification for breaking the rule in that the person stealing the food believes that if they steal the food, then they and/or their family will not be hungry, and this is good. To a utilitarian, this is a plausible justification, because the person is attempting to increase the happiness for as many people as he can. However, Kant refutes this type of thinking by stating that the unknown is reason enough for not breaking the rule. The person who stole the food has no idea what might happen in the future; perhaps he would find a job, a handout, or come, somehow, into a small amount of wealth. Thus, it is illogical to steal the bread. Also, Kant states that moral rules are to be followed, and that moral rules are universal. Maxims, the reason for doing an action, must be universal moral rules in order for it to be a "good" reason. If the person stealing the food were to use the maxim, "I'm stealing this food because my family is starving", he would be making a decision based on a non-universal maxim, and thus his decision would be immoral. If everyone were to steal bread whenever they were hungry, then no one would trust another, and society might collapse as a result. Thus, the only way to make a moral decision in this case is to stick to the rule "do not steal". If no one were to steal, then no one would fear the loss of property by another, and human relations would be better. Thus, the best thing to do would be to follow the set moral rule.
Kant's theory thus settles the problem of justice in Utilitarianism. As stated in the first of my essay's, justice is not always possible under utilitarianism. To cite the example from page 106 of Rachel's The Elements of Moral Philosophy , a utilitarian must bear false witness against the accused in order to bring about the most pleasure for the most people. A man is accused of rape, and because of his skin color the majority of people in the court wish to see the man found guilty. The utilitarian witnessed the crime and knows that the accused is not the guilty man. However, he believes that it will bring about the greatest amount of pleasure for the majority if the accused is found guilty, and thus feels it his responsibility to lie about what he saw, incriminating the accused. According to Kant's principles, this is wrong, because lying for any reason is wrong. If every person lied in court merely to please the masses, then justice would rarely, if ever, be served. Since the universal rule, "do not lie", would be broken, lying in court would be wrong, no matter what the justification. Thus, according to Kant, no matter what the masses would see as pleasurable, lying is never acceptable.
Kant's principles are, according to himself, the best route for mankind. One can establish for himself what the universal moral rules are by testing the maxim. If the maxim cannot be applied universally, then it is immoral and should not be pursued. If, however, a maxim can be applied to every situation, then it is a universal maxim, and is moral. Thus, whenever a person follows a universal moral rule, no matter what the consequence, they have done what was right and cannot be held in contempt.

Back to Ethics Essays Main Page
Back to Corey's Written Stuff
Back to Corey's Home Page.