ANANYA AWASTHI

F2019A2PS0884P
GS F312- APPLIED PHILOSOPHY

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES, ITS IMPORTANCE AND APPLICATION IN

REAL LIFE

Human life is complicated and involves making decisions from the choices available to
them. Every decision an individual makes has an effect not only on himself but also on the
people around him; the decision made should be ethically correct. Ethical decisions are the
decision that are moral. The decision of an individual is bound by moral ethics; thus, these
are the guiding principles from which one arrives at conclusion.

The importance of morality was rightly recognised in the ancient period as well, hence many
philosophers came up with their theory of ethics to lay down a moral ground and set the
guidelines on which the action should be based. In the 18th century, Immanuel Kant came up
with his theory of ethics in which he defined Categorical Imperatives. Kant’s theory is
deontological, which means duty oriented. He stressed on the importance of good will and
says that a will is good when it is determined by respect for moral law or consciousness of
duty. An act done from inclination, pity or sympathy is not moral. It must be done from
respect for moral law. Kant considered morality as a constant, universalizable. The moral law
of Kant hints at absolutism as he considered them to be absolute and ultimate. These laws
don’t change with any change in circumstances or preferences. He also differentiated religion
from morality because different religions have their own theory about morality, hence he
devised a unified ethical theory. Kant argues that one does not need religion to point out acts
that are right or wrong, this can be accomplished by using intellect. Categorical Imperatives
are the commands that one must follow, regardless of his desires and circumstances. The
moral law, a fundamental principle, stems from pure reason and is binding on all. The law is
categorically imperative and unconditional.

These laws ensure the freedom of will and help an individual differentiate between the right
and the wrong. Categorical Imperative help the man realise a world outside of senses, which
is based upon pure reason. The imperative commands an absolutely good and virtuous will
and hence as the reason tells us, such a will deserves happiness. Since the moral law
embodies reason, it must be realisable, but in our period of existence, we cannot reach
holiness, thus implying an eternal stride for perfection is necessary. Kant here hints about the
immortality of the soul.

Kant’s theory is based on metaphysics because he derives this theory of normative ethics
from observation and his concept of human behaviour. Kant also discusses about hypothetical
imperatives, which are goal-oriented and conditional commands. These imperatives deal
more about desires than morality. The moral command remains same for every circumstance,
Kant accepts that these laws can be framed in a different way however their basic principle
remains the same. To decide what action comes under moral, Kant formulated categorical
imperatives, which can be understood in various formulations.

1st Categorical imperative:

The first categorical imperative focusses on the universalizability principle. It states that “Act
according only to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law without contradiction”. In the imperative given by him, maxim refers to general
rule and universal law is the guiding principle that must be followed in similar situations.
Before performing any action or making a decision, Kant encourages us to ask the question,
what is the maxim or the general rule of the action that I am performing. For example, I left
my wallet in my dorm and I’m feeling hungry. Infront of me I see an unattended shop having
apples. I could easily take the apple without anyone noticing and be on my way, but Kant
compels us to ask, is this action moral? If I am stealing an apple from the shop, I am
universalizing that action i.e., everyone should always steal. This leads to a contradiction and
Kant was adamant about his theory of ethics that moral actions cannot lead to contradictions.
The contradiction in the above example is that nobody would say that everyone should steal
all the time, therefore stealing is not universalizable. Kant believes that moral rules apply to
all the individuals equally and hence it is fair.

2nd Categorical Imperative:

The 2nd categorical imperative elaborates upon how we must treat other people of the
community and is also called as formula of humanity. It states that “Act so that you treat
humanity whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end, and never as a
means”. Here the term mere means refers to the thing we use for our own benefit without
giving any thought about the interest or the benefit of thing that we are using. In our daily
lives we use things as mere means all the time. Eg: I am using the laptop to complete my
philosophy assignment. Kant argued that it is perfectly fine to use things as mere means but
not humans because humans are “ends in ourselves”. We are not inanimate objects to be used
by other humans as mere means. Humans are rational, autonomous, exist for themselves and
capable of setting their own goals and work towards them, hence we are ends in ourselves.
So, to treat someone as end in himself means to recognise the humanity of that individual and
realise that he has goals, values and interest of his own and we should morally keep that in
mind in our encounters with him. Kant points out that we do use people all the time, but its
fine to use someone as a means for something but not as “mere means”. We recognise their
humanity and values when we use them. Eg: Students use their teachers to attain knowledge
whilst appreciating their values. Humans deserve to be not treated as mere means because of
their autonomy. Contrary to other things in the world, humans are self-governed, we are able
to set our own ends and make impartial decision based on our rational will. Kant permeates
us with moral worth, which channels his thoughts that we should not be manipulated or
manipulate other humans for our own benefit. This indicates that lying and deception should
not be encouraged because if a human is deceived, then he loses his ability to make an
autonomous decision because his decision would be based on false information. For instance,
a child borrows money from his mother for buying books, however he spends that money to
buy video games. Here the child uses his mother as mere means to accomplish his goal to buy
video games without giving any thoughts about mothers’ interest and goals, consequently this
is a violation of Kant’s 2nd categorical imperative.

CRITICISMS:

Although the categorical imperatives help us understand which actions can be regarded as
moral, but this theory has critical drawbacks. Kantianism is absolute, unconditional and there
are no exceptions for violating the moral rules. It focusses on the intent of our actions,
however Utilitarianism, which is considered as an antithesis to Kantianism, gives more
attention to the consequences of our actions. This moral theory focuses on the results of our
actions and deems the intent irrelevant. John Stuart Mill provided a hedonistic approach by
equating good actions to happiness.

Categorical imperative fails in the challenging cases. Let us consider an example: “One
should never lie”. This line fits both the imperatives because lying isn’t a universalizable
principle and if we lie, we are using the other person as a mere means to achieve our goal.
However there exist exception to this proposition, for instance there was widespread hatred
for the Jews during World War II. To protect the Jews from holocaust is the moral thing to
do, however during that period this could only be accomplished by contradicting the maxim
i.e., telling a lie. A plausible solution to this conundrum could be by modifying the maxim
i.e., don’t lie unless you need to do so to save innocent lives. However, adding these clauses
and making the rule more specific, adds complexity to the rule.

The Kantian imperatives are general rules, which leads to irresolvable conflicts. If the
maxims are too specific, people can manipulate or state them in a way that justifies immoral
actions. This leads us to the conclusion that Kantianism does not take into account the actual
complexity of human character and the situation they encounter in daily lives. Jean-Paul
Sartre also criticised the moral philosophy of Kant. Sartre argues that there are situations,
where one does not know which action is morally correct. For example, should a young man
join army to serve his country or stay at home and take care of his ill mother. There is no
correct answer, categorical imperatives fail to provide a correct solution thus we enter the
realms of existentialism.

APPLICATIONS IN REAL LIFE:

CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

According to utilitarianism, a person should be punished if this act makes the society happy
and benefits it in some way. Under this definition, an innocent man can also be punished just
because it benefits the society in some manner. This justifies excessive forms of punishments
in the society. Kant’s approach to this question is different. The two basic principles of Kant
to this problem are Retribution and Proportionality. Retribution means that a person should
be punished because he deserves it. Proportionality justifies that the punishment should be
proportional to the crime committed. Kant contradicts the utilitarian view that one can be
punished if it benefits the society by saying that if we do so, we would be treating them as
mere means to an end. This justifies not punishing the innocent. Kant’s view of the criminals
is that by punishing them, we acknowledge their autonomy and respects their rationality. He
says that when we punish someone for the crime they have committed, we mean, they
understand the consequences for their actions and have to take the punishment that follows.
Thus, punishing someone doesn’t in anyway treat them as mere means and holding one
accountable shows respect to their autonomy.
TREATMENT OF ANIMALS

Kant’s take on the cruelty of animals is an interesting one. It goes against the general
prevailing consensus. According to him, since animals are not humans that can exercise free
will, hence there are no moral and ethical obligations towards them. Thus, by definition it is
not immoral to be cruel towards animals. However, Kant says that one should not practice
cruelty on animals because doing so would desensitize one to pain and this would desensitize
one towards human pain and suffering. This in the long run can motivate one to torture and
cause pain to other human being. This is a controversial view because he justifies not
harming animals on the basis of how it indirectly affects the human mindset and not on the
basis of the pain and suffering it causes to the animal.

ABORTION

Abortion is a major social issue in current world. There has always been a debate whether
abortion should be morally permissible or not. The main question in this argument is whether
to consider foetus as a living life. Deontological ethics is not focused on the consequences of
action but rather on following the ethical duty. Immanuel Kant believed that humans should
never be treated as means to an end and had a lot of respect for human life. Hence this
argument points out that abortion would be forbidden under Kantian ethics, because if
abortion were to be universalized there would come a stage when there would be no new life
and the next generation would be wiped off. Secondly, Kantian ethics puts emphasis on
human life and terminating a life to make mothers’ life easier treats the foetus as mere means,
which is against the categorical imperative. However, this circles back us to the central
argument, whether to consider foetus as a living life.

CONCLUSION:

Kant formulated his theory of ethics to provide people with a set of rules or guiding
principles known as categorical imperatives by which they should judge actions. The actions
which do not contradict the set of rules are judged to be moral. This approach of morality is
deontological. It lays more emphasis on the intent behind our actions rather than the results
they produce. This eliminates the subjectivity associated with our actions as we follow a set
of defined rules.
Although this theory has many strengths, but many disagree with the result it produces. It
excludes the human emotion and character completely out of the decision-making process.
Categorical Imperatives are widely applicable in many current world problems. Suicide is
one of the major problems tackled by Kant and he advocated for the prevention of suicide
through his theory by saying that if this maxim were to be universalized then no life would be
left on Earth. Despite its drawbacks, Categorical Imperatives are set of rational guidelines
which are still referred to judge the morality of our actions.