categorical imperative - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf

8/10/2019 Categorical imperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf

1/10

5/20/2014 Categ orical imperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative 1/10

Categorical imperativeFrom Wikipedia, the fre e encyclopedia

The categ orical imperative (German: Kategorischer Imperativ ) is the central philosophical concept in thedeontologi cal moral philosoph y of Immanuel Kant. Introduced in Kant's 1785 Grounding for the Metaphysicsof Morals , it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.

According to K ant, human bein gs simply occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up inone ultimate co mmandment o f reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined animperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

Hypothetical im peratives apply to som eone dependent on them having certain ends to the meaning:

if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;

if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts itsauthority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itsel f. It is best known in its firstformulation:

Act only according to that maxim where by you can, at the same time, will that it should become a

universal law. [1]

Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it couldnever surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does notmaximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the

positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuademoral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which theyare based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system, based onthe demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.

Contents

1 Nature of the concept1.1 Freedom and autonomy

1.2 Good will, duty, a nd the categorical imperative

2 The First Formulation

2.1 Perfect duty

2.2 Imperfect duty

3 The Second Formulation

4 The Third Formulation

5 Normative interpretation

5.1 Deception

5.2 Theft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_(philosophy)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounding_for_the_Metaphysics_of_Moralshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_philosophy#Deontologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language


2/10



5.3 Suicide

5.4 Laziness

5.5 Charity

5.6 Cruelty to animals

6 Normative criticism

6.1 The Golden Rule

6.2 Inquiring murderer

6.3 Questioning autonomy

6.4 Kant's categorical imperative and the trial of Adolf Eichmann

7 See also

8 References

9 External links

Nature of the concept

The capacity that underlies deciding what is moral is called pure practical reason, which is contrasted with purereason (the capacity to know without having been shown) and mere practical reason (which allows us to interactwith the world in experience). Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends. They do not,however, tell us which ends we should choose. The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are"right" (e.g., helping someone) and those that are "good" (e.g., enriching oneself). Kant considered the "right"superior to the "good"; to him, the "good" was morally irrelevant. In Kant's view, a person cannot decidewhether conduct is "right," or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a priori , using

pure practical reason.

Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can bedetermined as moral. It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative.Pure practical reason in the process of determining it dictates what ought to be done without reference toempirical contingent factors. Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject

posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctiveaspect of Kant's moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of humanrights and equality.

Freedom and autonomy

Kant viewed the human individual as a rationally self-conscious being with "impure" freedom of choice:

The faculty of desire in accordance with concepts, in-so-far as the ground determining it to actionlies within itself and not in its object, is called a faculty to "do or to refrain from doing as one

pleases". Insofar as it is joined with one's consciousness of the ability to bring about its object byone's action it is called choice (Willkr); if it is not joined with this consciousness its act is called a

wish . The faculty of desire whose inner determining ground, hence even what pleases it, lies withinthe subject's reason is called the will (Wille). The will is therefore the faculty of desire considerednot so much in relation to action (as choice is) but rather in relation to the ground determiningchoice in action. The will itself, strictly speaking, has no determining ground; insofar as it candetermine choice, it is instead practical reason itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equalityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rightshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_knowledgehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_reasonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_practical_reason


3/10



Act onlyaccording to thatmaxim wherebyyou can at thesame time willthat it should

become a

Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wishcan be included under the will. That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called freechoice. That which can be determined only by inclination (sensible impulse, stimulus ) would beanimal choice ( arbitrium brutum ). Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed beaffected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself (apart from an acquired

proficiency of reason) not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.

- Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:213-4

For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without beingcaused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, isincomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself .

Although Kant conceded that there could be no conceivable example of free will, because any example wouldonly show us a will as it appears to us as a subject of natural laws he nevertheless argued againstdeterminism. He proposed that determinism is logically inconsistent: The determinist claims that because Acaused B, and B caused C , that A is the true cause of C . Applied to a case of the human will, a deterministwould argue that the will does not have causal power and that something outside the will causes the will to act asit does. But this argument merely assumes what it sets out to prove: viz. that the human will is part of the causalchain.

Secondly, Kant remarks that free will is inherently unknowable . Since even a free person could not possiblyhave knowledge of their own freedom, we cannot use our failure to find a proof for freedom as evidence for alack of it. The observable world could never contain an example of freedom because it would never show us awill as it appears to itself , but only a will that is subject to natural laws imposed on it. But we do appear toourselves as free. Therefore he argued for the idea of transcendental freedom that is, freedom as a

presupposition of the question "what ought I to do?" This is what gives us sufficient basis for ascribing moralresponsibility: the rational and self-actualizing power of a person, which he calls moral autonomy: "the propertythe will has of being a law unto itself."

Good will, duty, and the categorical imperative

Since considerations of the physical details of actions are necessarily bound up with a person's subjective preferences, and could have been brought about without the action of a rational will, Kant concluded that theexpected consequences of an act are themselves morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral deliberation.The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the good will, expressed in recognition of moral duty.

Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the moral law set by the categorical imperative. Only acategorical imperative, then, can be the supreme principle of morality.

The First Formulation

From this step, Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is truemust be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including theidentity of the person making the moral deliberation. A moral maximmust imply absolute necessity, which is to say that it must bedisconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the

proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. This leads tothe first formulation of the categorical imperative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will


4/10



universal lawwithoutcontradiction.

Immanuel Kant, Grounding for theMetaphysics of Morals [1]

Act in such a waythat you treathumanity,whether in your own person or inthe person of anyother, never merely as ameans to an end,

but always at thesame time as anend.

Immanuel Kant, Grounding for theMetaphysics of Morals [1]

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same

time will that it should become a universal law without

contradiction." [1]

Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two subsets:

Perfect dutyAccording to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictionswhen we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in acontradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of property, but were Auniversalized, then there could be no property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself.

In general, perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for ahuman being.

Imperfect duty

Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason, but which allow for desires in how theyare carried out in practice. Because these depend somewhat on the subjective preferences of humankind, thisduty is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally binding. As such, unlike perfect duties, you do notattract blame should you not complete an imperfect duty but you shall receive praise for it should you completeit, as you have gone beyond the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself. Imperfect duties are circumstantial,meaning simply that you could not reasonably exist in a constant state of performing that duty. This is what trulydifferentiates between perfect and imperfect duties, because imperfect duties are those duties that are never trulycompleted. A particular example provided by Kant is the imperfect duty to cultivate one's own talents.

The Second Formulation

Every rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but alsoan end. Most ends are of a subjective kind, because they need only be

pursued if they are in line with some particular hypothetical imperativethat a person may choose to adopt. For an end to be objective, itwould be necessary that we categorically pursue it.

The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as asubjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general. Becausethe autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action, itwould contradict the first formulation to claim that a person is merely ameans to some other end, rather than always an end in themselves.

On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categoricalimperative from the first.

By combining this formulation with the first, we learn that a person has

erfect duty not to use the humanity of themselves or others merely asa means to some other end. As a slaveowner would be effectivelyasserting a moral right to own a person as a slave, they would be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaveryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant


5/10


6/10



Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is aviolation of perfect duty interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from anunknowing victim, it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no

person can consent to theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft.Because the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature,and theft contradicts perfect duty.

Suicide

Kant applied his categorical imperative to the issue of suicide in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals ,[3]

writing that:

A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would not becontrary to his duty to himself. Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could become auniversal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shortenmy life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. Thereonly remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can become a universal lawof nature. One sees at once that a contradiction in a system of nature whose law woulddestroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maximcannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to thesupreme principle of all duty.

Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, p30-31

Laziness

Kant also applies the categorical imperative in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals on the subject of "failing to cultivate one's talents." He proposes a man who if he cultivated his talents could bring many goods, buthe has everything he wants and would prefer to enjoy the pleasures of life instead. The man asks himself how theuniversality of such a thing works. While Kant agrees that a society could subsist if everyone did nothing, henotes that the man would have no pleasures to enjoy, for if everyone let their talents go to waste, there would beno one to create luxuries that created this theoretical situation in the first place. Not only that, but cultivatingone's talents is a duty to oneself. Thus, it is not willed to make laziness universal, and a rational being hasimperfect duty to cultivate its talents. Kant concludes in Grounding :

...he cannot possibly will that this should become a universal law of nature or be implanted in us assuch a law by a natural instinct. For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his faculties

should be developed, inasmuch as they are given him for all sorts of possible purposes. [4]

Charity

Kant's last application of the categorical imperative in Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is of charity.He proposes a fourth man who finds his own life fine but sees other people struggling with life and who pondersthe outcome of doing nothing to help those in need (while not envying them or accepting anything from them).While Kant admits that humanity could subsist (and admits it could possibly perform better) if this wereuniversal, he states in Grounding :


7/10


8/10



One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the French philosopher Benjamin Constant,who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell aknown murderer the location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was still alive, and his responsewas the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (sometimes translated On aSupposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns ). In this reply, Kant agreed with Constant'sinference, that from Kant's premises one must infer a moral duty not to lie to a murderer.

Kant denied that such an inference indicates any weakness in his premises: not lying to the murderer is required because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences. He claimed that because lyingto the murderer would treat him as a mere means to another end, the lie denies the rationality of another person,and therefore denies the possibility of there being free rational action at all. This lie results in a contradiction inconceivably and therefore the lie is in conflict with duty.

Questioning autonomy

Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy expresses doubt concerning the absence of egoism in theCategorical Imperative. Schopenhauer claimed that the Categorical Imperative is actually hypothetical and

egotistical, not categorical. Kierkegaard believed Kantian autonomy was insufficient and that, if unchecked, people tend to be lenient in their own case, either by not exercising the full rigor of the moral law or by not properly disciplining themselves of moral transgressions:

Kant was of the opinion that man is his own law (autonomy) - that is, he binds himself under thelaw which he himself gives himself. Actually, in a profounder sense, this is how lawlessness or experimentation are established. This is not being rigorously earnest any more than Sancho Panza'sself-administered blows to his own bottom were vigorous. ... Now if a man is never even oncewilling in his lifetime to act so decisively that [a lawgiver] can get hold of him, well, then it happens,then the man is allowed to live on in self-complacent illusion and make-believe and

experimentation, but this also means: utterly without grace.

Papers and Journals

Kant's categorical imperative and the trial of Adolf Eichmann

In 1961, discussion of Kant's categorical imperative included even the trial of the infamous SS LieutenantColonel Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem.

As Hannah Arendt wrote in her book on the trial, Eichmann declared "with great emphasis that he had lived hiswhole life ... according to a Kantian definition of duty". Arendt considered this so "incomprehensible on the faceof it" that it confirmed her sense that he wasn't really thinking at all, just mouthing accepted formulae, thereby

establishing his banality. [12] Judge Raveh indeed had asked Eichmann whether he thought he had really livedaccording to the categorical imperative during the war. Eichmann acknowledged he did not "live entirely

according to it, although I would like to do so." [12]

Deborah Lipstadt, in her book on the trial, takes this as evidence that evil is not banal , but is in fact self-aware .

See also

Ethics

The Ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lipstadthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmannhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sancho_Panzahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kierkegaardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheticalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer%27s_criticism_of_the_Kantian_philosophy#Categorical_Imperativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Constanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France


9/10


http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative 9/10

Generalization (logic)

Generalization error

Hasty generalization

Ka ntianism

Deontological ethics

Refer ences

Exter nal links

Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5682) Project

Gut en berg

Immanuel Kant in Italia (http://users.unimi.it/~it_kant/it_kant.htm), a website on the presence and diffusion

of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in Italy

Glo ssary of Kant's Technical Terms (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html), from Stephen

Palmquist's book Kant's System of Perspectives (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1): An

arc hitectonic interpretation of the Critical philosophy (University Press of America, 1993)

Retrieved f rom "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categorical_imperative&oldid=608108892"Categorie s: Deontological ethics Kantianism Ethical principles

1. ^ a b c d e Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of

Mora l s 3rd ed . Hackett. p. 30. ISBN 0-87220-166-X.

2. ^ K ant, Immanuel; trans. Ellington J.W. [1785] (1993) , p43

3. ^ K ant, Immanuel; trans. Ellington J.W. [1785] (1993) , p30-31



6. ^ Confucious: The Golden Rule by Russel Freedman

7. ^ Antony Flew, ed. (1979). "golden rule". A Dictionary of Philosophy . London: Pan Books in association with

The MacMillan Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-330-48730-2.

8. ^ "This is indeed the well-known Golden Rule that we find in the teachings of Moses, and Confucius, and

Jes us , and many others. I think, however, that all three of them would say that the most universal moral rule is

even more universal than this one: something like "Do good and not evil." Kreeft, Peter (2009-09-16). Socrates

Meets Kant (p. 234). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

9. ^ "The Fair Society"10. ^ K r eeft, Peter (2009-09-16). Socrates Meets Kant (p. 236). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

11. ^ S ee footnote 23. Kant, Immanuel; trans. Ellington J.W. [1785] (1993) , p37

12. ^ a b Arendt, Hannah (September 22, 2006) [First published 1963]. "Chapter VIII: Duties of a Law-Abiding

Citizen". Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil . London: Penguin Classics. pp. 135136.

ISB N 978-0-14-303988-4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-14-303988-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem:_A_Report_on_the_Banality_of_Evilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-330-48730-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmillan_Publishershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Bookshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flewhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87220-166-Xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Numberhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Categoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categorical_imperative&oldid=608108892http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.htmlhttp://users.unimi.it/~it_kant/it_kant.htmhttp://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5682http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization_errorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization_(logic)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethical_principleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Kantianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deontological_ethics


10/10


This page was last modified on 11 May 2014 at 20:29.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms mayapply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registeredtrademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policyhttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Usehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

categorical imperative - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.pdf

Documents