Summary of Kant’s Categorical Imperative by Portia White 10/18/202
Kant claims that the good will is a product of reason which culminates in ones duty to act out of reverence for a supreme moral principle. The supreme moral principle is the Categorical Imperative which has two versions. The first version states “Act only on that maxim that you can will a universal law”. The second version states “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end”. (Lecture notes) Fulfilling the first version necessitates the fulfillment of the second version.
Kant claims that the good will is the only thing that can be taken as good without qualification. All other qualities (such as courage, resolution, temperament) are measured in terms of their moral worthiness by the good will alone. Without the good will all good characteristics can become bad. Kant claims that the good will is good through its willing and good in itself. In fact above all and without concern for the outcome of events no matter how bad, the ‘good will’ will always shine through.
He claims that the sole purpose for the capacity for reason is to create a good will. The good will according to Kant consists of autonomy, rationality and respect for others. Unlike the other organs in our body, the brain and its capacity for reason, does not seem to be found for any apparent end. If the purpose of nature were to fulfill ones own preservation, welfare or happiness then nature would have endowed us with a natural instinct to fulfill that purpose. Therefore the capacity for reason and thus the ability to choose makes the good will the first purpose of this capacity and makes happiness a mere second. Fulfilling the first purpose could prevent ones happiness however, there is certain contentment found in having fulfilled the first purpose.
From the good will comes a sense of duty. Although some act in accordance with duty, unless it is for the sake of duty it is not a morally worthy act. Duty, Kant claims is “the necessity to act out of reverence for the law”(Pojman 261). The good will necessitates that one act in accordance with duty without regard for the consequences of the action. It is the pure reverence for the law that constitutes ones duty.
The law Kant claims is to “act in such a way that I could will my maxim become a universal law”(Pojman 261). The idea of this law is only present in rational beings and is by which the good will is measured. With this law one is able to test each action in order to determine its rightness or wrongness. When presented with a moral dilemma one must apply their maxim to the law. Once one has formulated their maxim or desire for their action they must decide whether it can be universalized. That is, could one assert that it is okay to act in such a way and that everyone should act in such a way? One must then decide whether this action treats humans not as means but as ends. If one can say “yes” to both those criteria then the maxim passes the test and the action is moral. Likewise if the maxim does not pass the tests it is immoral. In order to illuminate the function of this law Kant uses the example of a lying promise. If one were to make a promise with the intention of not keeping it that would be a lie. One could not assert that it is okay to make a lying promise nor assert that everyone should make a lying promise since the entire institution of promising would crumble. Since a promise itself is the intention of keeping ones word. Therefore, there would no longer be such a thing as a promise. Therefore to make a promise with the intention of not keeping it is immoral. He uses suicide, neglecting natural gifts and neglecting to help others as similar examples. He subjects those examples to the same test for morality.
Although Kant uses four examples to show how the categorical imperative would function as a test for morality. He confuses with his examples the distinction between the ought and the is. The Categorical Imperative is meant to be a test of certainty about what is moral, not what ought to be moral. His example of a lying promise is his only example that shows how the Categorical Imperative indicates what is immoral.
The other examples rely on an obvious reason why the maxim ought not be universalized. An obvious reason is not enough to substantiate his claim that the Categorical Imperative would determine the rightness or wrongness of ones action. Since the question of universalization requires moral intuition. For example, he says that according to the Categorical Imperative, suicide is immoral since one could obviously not will that the desire to kill oneself be universalized. However, this obvious problem which would be the decline in population is not enough to show that the action is immoral according to the test of the Categorical Imperative. It relies on mere intuition to determine what is bad for humanity. In this case we intuit that it would be bad to have all of humanity commit suicide. The rightness or wrongness of the outcome is thus determined by us through intuition and is not itself the result of the Categorical Imperative test.
The Categorical Imperative in this example only leads us to make a judgment about the morality of the outcome of the action. Therefore when we attempt to universalize the maxim of suicide we arrive at a question of whether or not everyone ought to commit suicide. We have to make a moral judgment through intuition that would thus determine whether we ought to universalize that maxim. Therefore the Categorical Imperative is an insufficient test without applied moral intuition and judgment.