Category: Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant developed a concept called Categorical Imperative. His concept acts as an ethical principle for behavior which helps in deciding whether an action is right or wrong, desired or undesired. A way to evaluate his concept is to ask what would happen if others also in the same circumstance, act the same. An example of the categorical imperative: Suppose Ram plans on cheating in an examination. If he applies Kant’s categorical imperative, he will decide not to cheat because if everyone cheated examination will be pointless. We can say that the concept of the Categorical Imperative provides a guideline for what decision to be made when faced with ethical confusion.

Immanuel Kant discovers duties as a required action in the same degree as the categorical imperative. The actions that are always met are considered to be perfect duties, for example being honest in any circumstances. And the actions that are admirable, but not essential in respect to categorical imperative is considered as imperfect duties. Kant illustrates nurturing one’s talent as a form of imperfect duty. For example professional duties. Business professionals have imperfect duties of acquiring knowledge and skills necessary to complete or accomplish their business tasks. Another example, we have imperfect duties to develop our skills for our career-related jobs in our college life.

Ross describes duties as following a certain duty honestly until it is set aside by another duty. Ross explains there are various prima facie duties that every individual needs to decide in what way or how precisely they want to do it. Prima Facie duties are strong beliefs in doing something in an honest and ethical manner. It includes various ethical responsibilities like keeping a promise, self-improvement, justice, etc.

For example: keeping a promise always means that one should not break the promise. Adapting to Ross’s concept means breaking promises is wrong. In moral sense duty of not lying is broken after breaking the promise and this can not be compromised. He also explains that breaking a promise in any circumstance is bad even for good cause. One can only break promises if the breaking of the promise is interpreted as a compulsion to create a great good in order to avoid bad. Ross’s approach of keeping promises is different. In my opinion, making a decision solely depends on the circumstances.

An analysis of Kantian deontological is the second ethical framework that I apply to discuss this case study. According to Kantian, a proposed action is morally acceptable if when compared to two formulations of the Categorical Imperative, said action it is not prohibited. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative dictates that everyone should “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Shaw & Barry, 2016, p.63-65). Therefore, I have to create a maxim to describe my proposed action, for example: “This star will not be sacked even though she breached the contract with me because of a profit from the potential audience she brings”. The maxim can then be universalised, as follows: “All stars will not be sacked even though they breached the contract because of a profit from the potential audience they bring”. However, if the maxim applied, there will be no meaning to the contract. There will be no reason to have a contract and follow the terms of employment. Because this maxim is self-contradictory in conception, it fails in the first formulation thus eliminating the possibility for individuals to rationalize under Kant’s ethics.

The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative holds that people should “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means”. Keeping that star to the show and not caring about her bad allegations can affect viewers who are watching them simply as a means to make a profit. Furthermore, some people watch this show may feel disrespectful when they have supported a show where the star behaves inappropriately and affects the moral awareness of human. And it is possible that the allegations of this star will also implicate those who work on the show and influence their image, from which I have taken away their ability to choose their own ends.

Conclusively, sacking the star will make the condition of contract is valid, and at the same time, I will be able to respect the audience and not affect employees working in the company. So, both Kant’s Categorical Imperative formulation were shown.

Finally, the third framework that I analysed is Kohlberg’s Theory. Kohlberg’s theory says that moral reasoning progresses successively through three levels. Each level is made up of two stages. Throughout the case study, stage three and five were applied. In the third stage, Kohlberg argued that morality is defined as the consensus of the whole society about right and wrong. In this situation, this star is accused of drinking and infidelity. For a star, the positive image is important because stars can be considered the ideal type for fans, their supporters follow. However, she was involved in bad allegations that had certain effects on the moral standards of a big star must not have. Although the prospective audience doesn’t care about the accusations, I’m referring to the long-term benefits that the star receives. The brand or any television program just wants to find a star whose life is positive so as not to affect their image in the public’s eyes. Therefore, this star did not meet the third stage of the Kohlberg theory.

In stage five, the ethical judgment leads to the social contract legalistic orientation. So, the fact that the star breached the contract of ‘friendly family’ image broke the mutual agreements between her and me in the contract that star signed. In addition, the star also broke social conventions and contract terms to protect the image of my TV show as well as her image. Maybe the star has the freedom to do these things, but those personal actions conflict with the rights and benefits of the contract she signed with me. Thus, during this stage, this star still violated Kohlberg’s ethical theory.

In conclusion, from an ethical perspective, I will sack that star. Through the above analysis and application of ethical frameworks, I found that the star did not meet certain moral theories. Besides that, I would recommend for this case study is to replace a star who is equally popular with this star and has positive aspects that meet the terms of the contract because of making so I will satisfy ethical issues.

The word deontology comes from the Greek word ‘deon’, which means ‘duty’. Which is why the name “duty-based ethics’ is associated with deontology. (Alexander & Moore, 2016). Deontology states that regardless of the outcome, one is morally obligated to act following a set of principles and rules. It requires people to follow their rules and do their duties. According to deontology, the correctness of action lies within itself, not in the consequences of the action. Actions can be morally obligatory irrespective of their consequences, these actions are called non-consequential. (Alexander & Moore, 2016).

Deontological ethics worry about the actions people undertake rather than the consequences of their actions. The rule states that one cannot justify an action by showing that it brought about good consequences. Deontology involves doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Any system that portrays a clear set of rules is a form of deontology which is where the name rule-based ethics was derived from. An example of a rule-based ethic is ‘The Ten Commandments’. You can argue that deontology is often opposed to consequentialism. Consequentialists identify the right action as the actions that produce the maximum number of good things. (Alexander & Moore, 2016). While deontologist acts the other way around in opposed. They consider what actions are right and proceed from there. Deontological theories argue that a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action. Consequentialism judges’ actions by their results while deontology deals with how you get the results, rather than the results you get.

A key figure of deontological ethics is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804). (Daniel et al, 2011, p158 -159). He created an ethical theory called Kantian ethical theory. The main objective of the Kantian Ethical Theory is to follow the rules set to live a moral life. Deontology believes that truly moral or ethical acts are not based on self-interest, but rather on a sense of duty to act on what is right and fair. According to the Kantian theory, one who follows deontological ethics should do the right thing, even if the right thing is causing more harm than good. For example, it is wrong to lie to someone even if the lie was told to save their life. This is where the topic for case study number seven would be implemented.

Kant based his theory around what he called ‘categorical imperative’. Categorical imperatives are our moral obligations, and Kant believed that they’re obtained from pure reason. Categorical imperative argues that all moral actions or inactions can be determined as necessary through reason. (Hill, 2005). It describes to ‘do unto others as you want them to do unto you’. The categorical imperative is designed to shift our perspective, to get us to see our behaviour in less imitate personal terms and thereby recognize some of its limitations. An example would be if someone is having an affair but keeping it away from their partner because they think it’s okay. However, the categorical imperative would be against it because you would also have to be equally acceptable for your partner to have an affair and not tell you. Kant believed that freedom isn’t an absence of government, a free society isn’t one that allows people more opportunity to do whatever they happen to fancy. It’s one that helps everyone become more reasonable. Kant argued, to determine what’s right, you must use reason and a sense of consideration for other people. Kant believed that proper, rational application of the categorical imperative will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents. This means no God required.

Kant’s view that moral rules apply to everyone equally sounds good and fair, but it can sometimes lead to some pretty counterintuitive results. For example, a woman names Susan is having dinner with her husband named Evan. Then a stranger knocks on the door and asks where Evan is, so he can shoot him. Susan’s impulse is to lie and say he isn’t at home to protect him. Using Kantian theory Susan can’t lie, not even to save Evan’s life. Kant’s reasoning is, let’s say she’s at the front door talking to the stranger. At the time, she thinks Evan is still at the dining, where she last saw him. But it turns out he was curious about the person at the door, so he went to check on her and heard the stranger making threats against him. Fearing for his life he proceeded to slip out the back door. Meanwhile, Susan, trying to save him, tells the stranger Evan isn’t there, even though she thinks he is. Based on her lie, the stranger leaves, and runs into tony as he rounds the corner heading away from the house and kills him. Had she told the truth, the stranger might have headed into the kitchen looking for Evan, which would have given Evan time to escape from the premises. By Kant’s reasoning, Susan is responsible for Evan’s death, because her lie caused it. Had she told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might have occurred.

According to Johnson and Cureton (2016) “…one of the most important projects of moral philosophy, for Kant, is to show that we, as rational agents, are bound by moral requirements and that fully rational agents would necessarily comply with them.” Kant took morality seriously, and he thought we should regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs. He knew that if we look to religion for our morality, we’re not going to get the same answer. He made a distinction between things we need to do morally, and things we need to do for other non-moral reasons. He identified that most of the time, whether we need to do something isn’t a moral choice, rather it depends on our desires. For example, if you desire wealth, then you need to work for it. If you desire knowledge, then you need to study for it. Immanuel Kant called these statements hypothetical imperatives. They are commands that one ought to follow if they want something. (Ewing, 1957, p 52). Kant viewed morality, not in terms of hypothetical imperative but terms of categorical imperatives. These commands must be followed regardless of your wants and desires.

This case study will be focusing on whether I tell Ricardo what Jenny did behind his back or whether I keep the promise made to my girlfriend. Using deontology as an ethical theory, the rule would be to not lie. But using Kantian ethics of perfect and imperfect duties, you shouldn’t break promises. So, by telling Ricardo, you are hereby breaking the promises you made to your girlfriend which is against the rule of deontology. Using the categorical imperative of the Kantian Ethical Theory, you would need to tell Ricardo about the affair, if he asks you if Jenny is cheating behind his back. Proper, rational application of the categorical imperative would lead us to moral truth. By not telling Ricardo about the affair, you are following the rule-based ethics to not break promises, which is part of the perfect duty of Kantian ethics. Therefore, you are obeying the deontological rule which believes that by acting under the duties, it is the right thing to do.

The theory that Kant developed is the precursor to many modern deontological theories. “Kant admits that his analytical arguments for the CI are inadequate on their own because the most they can show is that the CI is the supreme principle of morality if there is such a principle. Kant must, therefore, address the possibility that morality itself is an illusion by showing that the CI is an unconditional requirement of the reason that applies to us.” (Johnson & Cureton, 2016). Kant’s arguments may be unprovable, as he admits, but it does accord with our experience. Nonetheless, we humans are subject to dispositions, this sometimes makes us act in ways that could harm others or put them in danger. (Daniel et al, 2011, p 163). By following Kantian ethics to solve problems in my personal and professional life. I would need to follow the rule-based ethics of deontology, which is like the rules of the ten commandments. I would also need to implement the perfect and imperfect duties of Kantian theory.

In conclusion, according to Kant’s theory of perfect and imperfect duties, I made a perfect duty by promising to my girlfriend that I wouldn’t tell Ricardo. In the laws of Kantian ethics, it is wrong to lie, however, Ricardo did not ask me if Jenny is cheating on him. According to Kantian theory, the imperfect duty would be to tell Ricardo, because by telling him you are helping him. The perfect duty would be to keep the promise you made to your girlfriend to not tell Ricardo about Jenny.

The goal of morality is to “guide our actions, define our values, and give us reasons for being the persons we are” (p. 3). One theory of morality is nonconsequentialism. “Nonconsequentalist moral theories say that the rightness of an action does not depend entirely on its consequences. It depends primarily, or completely, on the nature of the action itself” (p. 69). With nonconsequentialism, an action could be considered morally permissible even if it produces more bad than good. This leads us to one specific nonconsequentialist theory; Immanuel Kant’s principle of the categorical imperative. Kant states his principle of categorical imperative as “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (p. 70). Immanuel Kant says the principle and maxims stemming from it are universal and apply to all persons. We will use Immanuel Kant’s principle of categorical imperative to explain what our moral obligations to others living in extreme poverty would be if we lived according to Kant’s theory.

According to Thomas Pogge’s “Eradicating Systematic Poverty,” it states that one-third of all human deaths, about 50,000 deaths daily, are due to poverty-related causes. Poverty is found in every country in the world and the number of impoverished continues to grow. Our textbook “Doing Ethics” by Lewis Vaughn presents the question in chapter nineteen that has been hovering over our heads for quite some time. Vaughn asks the global question: “what are our moral obligations to the impoverished, hungry, dying strangers who are half a world away and whom we will never meet?” (p. 637). There are approximately seven billion people in the world and “according to the latest estimates, 1.2 billion people are living in extreme poverty, and about one in five persons in the developing world lives on less than $1.25 a day” (p. 637). The economic gap between the rich and the poor is a vastly growing one. “Economic inequality across the globe has always been with us, but now its scale is larger than most people realize. The eighty-five richest people on the planet now own as much as the entire poorest half of the world’s population” (p. 637-638). People may show sympathy for this large economic gap and the one billion living in extreme poverty, but they do not know what to do. Most of us assume that we have a duty to help the people around us, but the question of what do we do with the people who are halfway around the world that need our help? Lewis Vaughn wrote, “But many believe we have no duty at all to help distant peoples, strangers with whom we have no social or emotional connection.” Some argue it is our right to not share our wealth and what we have worked for while others argue that we have a duty of beneficence which is “a moral obligation to benefit others” (p.638). There continues to be many debates surrounding the idea of helping those in need.

When we consider economic inequality in light of Kant’s ethics, the moral thing to do would be to help the less fortunate. For Kant’s categorical imperatives, there are three formulations to his theory; (1) universality, (2) impartiality, and (3) respect for persons. Universality is the notion that moral law is binding and applies to all persons (p. 109). An example of this could be you can not steal an item and it be okay for you but not for someone else. The moral law is not specific to one person and you can not make exceptions for yourself. For impartiality, “it requires that the moral law applies to everyone in the same way, that no one can claim a privileged moral status” (p.109). In Kantian ethics, double standards are bad. In John Arthur’s “Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral Code,” he included how American philosopher, Richard Watson emphasizes his “principle of equity” and that “all human life is of equal value.” Respect for persons stems from the means-end principle. In the textbook, the means-end principle is “the rule that we must always treat people (including ourselves) as ends in themselves, never merely as means” (p.111). We can use child labor as an example of the means-end principle. Immanuel Kant would be against child labor because it would be using the children as a means rather than an end. You have to respect the children’s status as an actual person. Child labor is morally wrong and it takes away the children’s rights.

Kant’s moral principle, the categorical imperative, has many different versions that all work together to determine what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do. Kant’s main belief was using reason and consideration in order to determine what is right. Immanuel Kant believed it is not the consequences of the actions that mattered, it is doing that action for the right reason. Also, it was doing an action even if it does not align with your specific wants and needs. As a distinguished enlightenment thinker, Kant said that genuinely good actions are the ones you do purely out of respect for the moral laws. Most importantly, he believed in the rights of the people. Kant once said, “treat people as ends-in-themselves, rather than as mere means” (p. 105). Another important factor in Kant’s categorical imperative is that he did not believe religion had to be a factor when being a moral person. Immanuel Kant’s parents were quite religious and it seemed that all of the moral laws revolved around some sort of religious rules so he wanted to create ones that did not require religion to be apart of them. Kant believed that religion and morality were a terrible pairing.

As previously stated, there is a noticeable economic gap in the world. The richest eighty-five people on the planet now own as much as the entire poorest half of the world’s population” (p. 637-638) If we lived according to Kant’s categorical imperative, the answer to the question, “what are our moral obligations are to others who are less fortunate than ourselves?” would be that we have a duty to help those in need. Kant says that as long as you are helping with no anticipation of receiving some sort of reward then your actions are right and pass the test of the categorical imperative. Let’s use a hypothetical example of someone winning the lottery and planning to donate part of their winnings to a charity in Africa. Let’s say the lottery winner’s name is Frank Gomez. Frank Gomez was reading the paper one day and saw that Kanye West donated one million dollars to multiple charities on behalf of his wife, Kim Kardashian. Frank Gomez thought that it was awesome Kanye West’s name was in the newspaper for donating money and so Mr. Gomez decided that he wanted his name in the paper too. Frank Gomez then decided to donate a large portion of his winnings to an African charity. After the donation was made, weeks later Mr. Gomez saw his name in the paper and was overcome with joy. Would this be morally permissible according to Kant’s theory? The answer is no. It was a great thing that Frank decided to donate money to people living in poverty, however, he did it with the intent of getting his name in the newspaper so others could see his charitable donation. Kant’s categorical imperative is not based on the consequences of actions like other moral theories. Kant’s theory is strictly based on doing the action for the right reasons, unlike Mr. Gomez.

If we lived according to Kant’s categorical imperative, then our moral obligations to help others would be morally permissible. Kant’s main belief was using reason and consideration in order to determine what is right. Although Kant’s ethics seemed like it cared for the rights of the people and seemed everyone as equal, there are some problems when trying to apply his theory to the real world. A major no in the eyes of Kant is lying. Kant has no exceptions for lying and sees it as very wrong and immoral. The problem with this sometimes people lie with the intent of benefitting someone in danger for example. Say an ax murderer came into your home searching for your roommate. If you lied to the ax-wielding murderer with the intent to save your roommate’s life, then according to Kant, you are being immoral by lying and it would have been better in the long run to tell the truth, even if it resulted in the death of the roommate. Besides Kant’s opinion on lying, I believe his theory is adequate enough for applying it to real-life ethical issues. When writing this paper, I did not come across any issues when trying to apply Kant’s categorical imperative. In conclusion, I believe Kant’s ethics provides an adequate means for thinking through tough ethical situations.

In the passage provided from Kant’s The Moral Law, Kant puts forward the idea that if one isn’t willing to perform an act on the basis of being seduced by its consequences, and instead performs the act only because it is their duty, then and only then will that act be considered moral, or morally good. He proposed that once you removed the factor of consequence when considering the performance of an act and can will that that act be universalized, only then should you perform the act, and only then can you call yourself a good person.

Let’s say if a person thinks of making an empty promise – this person will be facing two further questions: 1) is making a false promise wise? 2) is it right? It would be wise if you think of the fact that the promise might be saving you from an embarrassing situation at that particular moment even though you know you don’t intend to keep it. But you might end up facing further adverse consequences once you make that false promise; it might cause you embarrassment in the long term. This would lead you to conclude that one should never make such a promise which might be disadvantageous for you, but as a matter of fact this maxim is entirely established on the fear of consequences. Being truthful for the sake of duty is completely different from telling the truth because you fear the consequences. Before doing such a task one should ask themselves whether they’d want the action that they’re about to commit be turned into a universal maxim – in this case, whether you’d want everyone to make a false promise to save themselves from difficult situations? Then you’d become aware of the fact that you might want to lie but you would not rationally want the act of lying to be universalized; because the implementation of such a law would mean the act of promising would never be honest, and no one would believe you or anyone else if a promise was to be made, and therefore your maxim would prove to annul itself.

Hence, you don’t need some profound insight to find out whether you have a good will. If you’re confused about a standing of a particular action, the only question you must ask is what would be the impact if that maxim were to be universalized. You should then refuse to act on that maxim not because the consequences of that action might possibly grief you or someone else, but because that maxim, if universalized, cannot possibly fit into universal law.

Therefore, to perform an act, your only motive should be duty, not the consequences of a particular action.

Analysis

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher (1724 – 1804) challenged utilitarianism. Philosophers who put forward consequentialism like Bentham and Mill believed that any action that would bring about more happiness than the alternative was a good action, even if that action included lying, deceit, theft or murder. But Kant was a stark opponent of this principle. He believed that certain acts are forbidden no matter the consequence.

Kantian ethics falls under deontological moral theory. These theories say that the only motive of performing an action should be duty, and not the consequences of that action. It says that focusing on the duty instead of the consequence helps determine whether an action is right or wrong. According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative determines what our moral duties are as it is the supreme principle of morality.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative relies on two questions: 1) if the maxim that you’re acting on should be universalized? 2) if the action you’re performing respects the autonomy of human beings and doesn’t use them as means for you to achieve your goal? If the answer of either one of these questions is “no”, then the action must not be performed as it is not moral.

What exactly is a Categorical Imperative? The word imperative means a command. For example, “don’t kill” is an imperative unto itself. One must always draw a distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, because this distinction determines whether you stand by the principles of Mill or Kant. Hypothetical imperatives are those commands that are conditional, and depend on your desires. For example, the imperative “don’t kill otherwise you’ll go to prison” is hypothetical in view of the fact that it states a consequence of killing, and elucidates that it’s only wrong because the consequences wouldn’t be in your favor. Meanwhile, a categorical imperative is an unconditional command. For example, “one must not kill”, is a pretty clear cut command, and even if killing someone is something that one would want to do to maximize their happiness, they cannot do it because it is their duty to not kill. Thus, Kantian ethics does not rely on conditions, the imperatives are unconditional, and by this one can see how Kantian ethics conflicts the consequentialist perspective.

Elaborating Categorical Imperative’s two part test further, let’s assume that a teenager wants to buy a PS4, but knows his mother would not give him the money for it, so he decides to lie to his mother and tell him that he wants the money to buy books as he knows that his mother wouldn’t deny him money for books. Now, according to Kant, the boy is performing an immoral act i.e. lying. This is because firstly, he is disregarding his duty of always telling the truth, and performing the act of lying because he’s intent on maximizing his happiness, i.e. performing the act not because he thinks it’s his duty but because he’s more concerned with the consequences. Secondly, he is using his mother as a means to achieve his goals by lying. Because when he lies, he robs his mother a chance to make an autonomous decision, hence using her as a tool to achieve his own happiness, i.e. the PS4.

Therefore, if you can’t will for a maxim to be universalized, you cannot say that that maxim is right, and if you’re using a human as a means, you’re not acknowledging that they’re rational beings who can make their own decisions. For instance, if you lie, you’re acting on the maxim “It is permissible to lie.” But this maxim could not be endorsed universally due to the fact that it is self-defeating; once it is universalized, people would believe that everyone’s lying, no one would believe the next person, and then lying won’t give you the same consequences it used to before.

Ergo, according to Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives, a good person is that who always performs their duty, and their only motive to perform that duty is solely because it is their duty. A good person would perform a duty even if they know that the result wouldn’t be in their favor, so what makes them good is that they’re doing things for the sake of goodness and goodness alone.

Criticism

1. Kant denied the role of emotions as a motive to behind any act. According to him, the only relevant motive behind any act is duty, and so he dismisses the role of emotions such as sympathy, guilt, pity or compassion as motives to perform an act. By dismissing these qualities, Kant also ignores the most basic aspects of moral actions.
2. Immanuel Kant says that persons are always ends to themselves, and one must not exploit another person no matter the purpose. But let’s not forget, Kant was racist himself. He claimed that the “race of whites contains all talents and motives in itself.” He also claimed that Hindus are more inclined towards arts than sciences, that blacks were only good for serving the whites, and that indigenous Americans were ‘lazy and impassionate’. By employing these claims, Kant himself contradicts his principle of never exploiting another person.
3. Kant’s principle does not consider the consequences of actions. Let’s assume a situation. There are two friends – friend A and friend B – and they are hanging out at friend A’s house. The doorbell rings, and friend B goes to check who’s there. Now, when he opens the door, he sees that there is a man standing there with a gun which is now being pointed at him, and the man with the gun is asking where friend A is. Now if the boy lies to save his friend’s life, according to Kant’s principles he’s being immoral, because one cannot will the act of lying to be universalized; secondly, by lying, he’s using the man with a gun as a means by not being honest with him and robbing him off a chance to make his own decisions. According to Kant, one must not act on such maxims, so one must not lie in any circumstance. But if the boy doesn’t lie, he might put the life of his friend in danger. So Kant does not take into account the actions of well-intentioned fools who cause problems unintentionally because according to him only the intentions count, so the person stands blameless, even if the action causes multiple deaths.

One of the most famous deontologists is Immanuel Kant who believes that one should act according to the Categorical Imperative. Acting in accordance to the Categorical Imperative means that you should do a right act with good will. This means you shouldn’t do something in conformity to duty. You should do something regardless of your desires. It should be of pure reason. You should do it because you know it is the right thing to do. That’s why in order for your act to be considered ethical, you need to know first that what you’re doing is right and of good will.

Kantian Ethics tells us to an act in accordance to “perfect duty” and not just in conformity to it. There is a difference between acting for the sake of duty and acting in conformity to duty. Both of them entails that you are acting because of duty but your motivations on doing this duty are different. Perfect Duty, doing duty for the sake of duty, needs you to act solely on duty and out of good will while Apparent Duty basis your actions on human inclinations. Acting, also, in perfect duty means you are doing something “without strings attached” based on the handouts. It means that you’re doing it without expecting positive reinforcements or something in return as opposed to duty in conformity where a person believes that following duty would bring them somewhere good.

Acting, also, in accordance to the Categorical Imperative means you act in accordance to its three maxims. The first Kantian Maxim is the Duty Maxim that one should “do duty for the sake of duty alone.” This means that you should act in accordance to good will, not on any other reasons including desire. One shouldn’t act in accordance to human inclination which is under the category o Hypothetical Imperative. Acting upon human inclinations means you are doing something for a reason other than it being a product of good will. Human Inclination can be manifested in three levels: emotional attachment, reciprocation, and fear of untoward experiences. Acting upon (1) emotional attachment means that you are doing something because your emotions told you to do it (e.g. giving your friends gifts because you are happy). The second is acting for (2) reciprocation which means that you are doing something expecting that they will do such things in return. This problematic mindset of expecting things in return can be reflected on Confucius’ Rule “Do not do unto others what you don’t want others do unto you.” It was just said that you shouldn’t do things for it to be reciprocated so this statement doesn’t abide by the relies set by Kant which is the reason why he created the Diamond Rule. It states that we should “do to others what is Right, having known it to be Right, even if others do not do the same thing to you.”

The final level of manifestation is doing acts in (3) fear of untoward consequences which are prevalent on religions saying that we should do good thing so that we won’t go to a hell-like place where we will stay in eternal damnation. These three manifestations of human inclination directly explain why it in itself is an enemy of duty. Kant believes that you should do ethical acts in accordance to duty because if you do some actions based on these human inclinations, your motivation might be corrupt. If you give your friends gift when you’re happy, does that mean that you won’t do it when you’re not happy? If you help other people expecting them to help you in return, what if they tell you that they won’t do the same acts on you? Would you stop doing good thing on that person? Finally, if it’s proven that there are no consequences to your good actions, would you choose to be bad? That’s why we shouldn’t use human inclinations as a motivation of our actions because it in itself is an enemy of duty.

Back to the Kantian Maxims, the second one is the Universalizability Maxim which states that we should “act in such a way that we can always will our action to become universal law.” This coincide Kant’s Universality Axiom that’s basically about if one thing can be applies universally or all things in general. This can be more expounded as I go on with the second maxim. This maxim contains three “Universalizability Tests” that one should look through before commencing an act. The first test is the (1) Individual reverse test which begs to ask the question “what is this action is done to me instead?” This means that if you don’t want other people to do such actions on you, then don’t do it on other. This does not coincide with Confucius’ Silver Rule because this is a matter of testing, not an application of real life. The second is (2) Universal Application Test which tests of its rightness by imagining that all people of all time in all situations does it. Would it create chaos or would it maintain peace? We can use this test when talking about revenge. If all people would take revenge on all the people who have wronged them, it would make a chaotic world because the need for revenge would just circle around certain people and the fight will never end. Finally, the third test is the (3) Test of Non-contradiction which tests whether a particular act doesn’t contradict with a universally recognized law and value. White lies, in this case, fails this test because it contradicts the universal law of honestly and lying would create deception which can never be a good thing in any cases.

Kant’s last maxim is the Personhood, Existence and Intrinsic Humanity Maxim which puts importance and value on the three things stated. It is saying that we should “act in such a way that we treat ourselves and others as an end-in-itself and not as a mean-towards-our-end. This is the maxim that I love the most since it focuses on giving value towards us and the humanity. It tells us to respect the personhood of the person by treating them as person and not as an object. We are also taught to “not to pull the carpet off on the feet of others” which means that we, as humanity, would give the chance to each other to grow together with each of us. Finally, and the best thing about this maxim is how it tells us to practice valuing the free will and volition of a person. It states that saying yes does not equate to a free consent because a person can be manipulated or coerced to do so. A free consent is a permission to do an act without any external and internal force. That is basically what the third maxim is about.

Immanuel Kant is one of the many philosophers that have contributed in the field of philosophy. Much more, his ideologies and philosophies in life draw me closer to reality due to realization of things that truly matter. His Categorical Imperative made me philosophize things over and over until I reached to the point of introspection – a time well spent for myself continually seeking for truth and wisdom.

A Categorical Imperative is a rule of action which is unconditional orabsolute for all agents, the reality or statement of which is not contingent onanydesire or end. There was only one Categorical Imperative for Kant, in the moral realm, that he expressed in two ways. The Categorical Imperative says, therefore: First, act only according to the concept by which you can at the same time makeita universal law. This is simply a structured reaffirmation of a concept that hasbeen around in all the major religions for a long time: ‘Do to others as you wouldhave them do to you.’ It is a purely formal or logical statement and representsthe state of behavioral reasoning rather than its morality. In life, I have beencircumvented by the notion that what we do will be reciprocated.

Since young, I have always planted a seed of love and not a seed of grudge. I always believethatwhat comes around goes around. It is right for me to start at a young agetheessence of love towards myself, my family, and the people that surrounds me. Andnow as I have slowly grow and develop, I continuously enjoy the fruit of myharvest – and that is receiving love from the people whom I love and treasuredfor since then. Second, act as to treat people always as ends in themselves, neveras mere means. This was intended for the general love Christian directive, therequest ‘to love one’s neighbor.’ To regard an individual as an end, since Kantimplied remembering that they had their very own existence where they meritedequity and equivalent treatment to seek after bliss and satisfaction. Kantcontended that the downright basic is simply the voice of our own selves. It’ssomething that we truly accept when we think reasonably. That is the standardgiven to us by our own keenness. Throughout everyday life, person’s capacityofdriving life ought to be perceived.

Regarding others as our own selves ought tobethe center of our philosophy for they are reflections of God’s creation anduniqueness. All that I do in life consistently features for the love of my neighbormore than myself. By sacrificially giving my time, consideration and love for otherpeople, I gradually look for satisfaction and fulfillment. For it is in themthatIfound and build my core and establishment of all that I do. And lastly, act asifyou live in a kingdom of ends. Kant ventured into the political domain his thinkingabout the Categorical Imperative. He asserted that preserving democracy is thecenter obligation of government. However, with the conventional idea ofopportunity or freedom, he realized that something was frightfully off-base. Inlibertarian terms, it ought not be deciphered as the option to do precisely anything we need. Just when we act as per our own best nature are without we, and on the off chance that we are heavily influenced by our own or others’ interests are we slaves. For instance, in a democratic country like Philippineswhose administration imposed democratic movement, the legislatureislegitimately unscrupulous if their impression of freedom is doing things openlypast the ethical laws. Ethical quality isn’t simply an issue of individual lead, yet inaddition, the establishment of society. The administration is of the people, bythepeople and for the people. In the event that they act in resistance of what’sgenerally right, at that point, what does that comprise to us?

In life, we are and should be bounded by moral principles and ethics that wouldserve as our internal compass that guides our lives to where it should have supposed to be. Although we are coiled in “wrongness” of things, we have to bearin mind that our lives are not invalid. We are slowly validating ourselves throughredirecting our pathways to the right direction. Then, there we will realize that the flaws of our lives are the pivotal points towards transcending ourselves into a person we can potentially be – always seeking and never stagnating.

The worth of human life is the most invaluable asset in human societies. Nevertheless, suicide raises some moral questions. While various theories elucidate the reasons why some individuals decide to attempt or commit suicide, there is a need for philosophical examination to justify such actions. Today, human beings are faced with numerous problems, some of which ultimately lead many individuals to prefer death to life. A significant body of literature documents different reasons that make these individuals commit suicide. These reasons rangers from personal views to the broad perspective of the society at large. Philosophers have played a critical role in this discussion. Some cite an instance of the existentialists in which suicide is not condemned in its entirety. This paper adopts Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and critically analyze the impasse relating to suicide in human society.

Kant’s Argument Against Suicide

Immanuel Kant is a noteworthy opponent of suicide. Kant’s arguments draw upon his opinion of moral worth as stemming from the autonomous rational wills of persons. According to Kant, individuals’ rational wills are the source of their moral duty. Therefore, it is practically a contradiction to assume that the same will can acceptably harm the very body that executes its choices and volitions (Cholbi 498). Thus, suicide is an attack on the very source of moral authority, given the unique worth of an autonomous rational will.

Kant’s universal law test for maxims aid as a standard for moral judgment. Suicide is used to exemplify the test in the Groundwork and the second Critique in which he rules suicide out. In the Groundwork, Kant uses suicide as the 3rd demonstration of the Law of Nature formulation of the categorical imperative (Cholbi 500). At this point, Kant asks people to visualize an individual tired of life because of numerous problems. The person thinks of suicide and considers the maxim. Maxim, in this case, stipulates that from self-love, an individual makes it his or her principle to shorten his or her life when its longer duration threatens more plights than it promises agreeableness. Kant’s argument of self-love is used to defend his belief that individuals who commit suicide are indeed violating the moral law. However, Kant asserts that committing suicide to avoid a troubled life is immoral in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Kant 34). The reason is that suicide is against the natural law that supports life. In this case, Kant mentions self-love that can preserve life. Therefore, according to Kant’s believes and their interpretations, suicide is immoral because it is against the self-love that was there initially.

Additionally, an individual is morally obligated to preserve his or her life because he or she has a priceless or immeasurable value that Kant refers to as dignity. This dignity is disrespected when a person decides to commit suicide for the benefit of his or her well-being (Cholbi 551). According to Kant’s believes, suicides signifies the destruction of an individual body as well as the very source of human moral value. Besides, the categorical imperative denotes that an act is prohibited when its maxima are not consistently universalized (Vong 656). Kant contends that an individual’s ethical action is grounded on specific rules or principles that designate what that individual should do and the reason that justifies that action. Subsequently, Kant categorical imperative comprises of several formulations. The first formulation specifies that a person should act according to the maxim which the person can simultaneously use so that it becomes a universal law. Consequently, the second formulation is about the imperative of morality, which stipulates that persons act in ways that the maxims of their actions were to turn out the universal law of nature through their will (Kant 44). More specifically, this formulation wants persons to always act in a way that will let the maxim of their actions to be consistently universalized. These individuals first need to check whether they want the maxim to be applied necessarily and universally in the process of the act of maxim becoming universal. Theorists distinguish logical and practical regarding the likelihood for a maxim to be universalized.

Subsequently, the concept of suicide can be tested using this principle when formulated as maxim. Indeed, suicide turns out to be moral if the maxim becomes universal. The maxim can be specified as a person’s will to commit suicide solely to avoid agonizing sufferings in a manner that its criticism means an improved choice for the person (Cholbi 502). If this maxim was universally accepted, it means that people would find themselves in circumstances in which any individual whose life becomes unbearable can attempt or commit suicide. The idea behind the circumstance is logically plausible. More specifically, suicide satisfies the criterion of the logical likelihood for a maxim to be universalized. Nonetheless, it can turn out to be problematic and unacceptable regarding the practical likelihood for a maxim to become universalized. Indeed, people do not want to find themselves in a situation whereby the maxim of suicide is consistently universalized, which advocates that, any individual with a troubled life, chooses to commit suicide (Cholbi 502-503). Nevertheless, in the Kantian perspective, it might be acceptable if it is the maxim of an individual who is facing challenges with dementia.

Rational beings should act in accordance with the maxim they want to apply as a universal law. Therefore, people’s actions must be consistently logical and have the capacity to be applied universally to all rational people. An immoral act, according to Kant’s view, is the concept of duty to commit suicide (Kant 46-47). The reason is that a person has a natural tendency for self-love and self-preservation. If the person no longer exists, he or she cannot love oneself. Kant’s case study examines a man who has a troubled life due to many problems. The man starts to wonder whether it is against the duty towards himself to commit suicide. Besides, Kant examines whether the maxim of the man’s action to commit suicide can be universally accepted if the man’s troubles are greater compared to his or her comfort experiences. After a deep examination, Kant realizes that this maxim is contradictory. This is because it would violate the same sense that should encourage people to live if it is universally accepted (Kant 47). Therefore, this maxim cannot become a universal natural law.

According to Kant, the first duty of an individual is self-preservation. As such, it is a crime to violate this duty or commit suicide. Life is worthwhile, according to Kant’s view, because it is a condition in which people possess freedom, freedom of action, and making choices. Kant elucidates how individuals who can commit suicide are considered not to be indecent or dangerous (Cholbi 507). In Kant’s perspective, such people can commit other crimes, and they do not respect themselves as well as other people. Additionally, Kant asserts that personhood is sacred within individuals, and a person’s life is a condition for everything else (Kant 55-56). An individual who commits a crime does not respect humanity and makes the things of him or herself. Therefore, suicide is defective, according to Kant.

Nevertheless, there are situations in which an individual is obliged to commit suicide for the sake of higher values. According to Kant, happiness is a paradigmatic motivation for life. A person cannot and should not commit suicide because he or she is not living happily. There is no need for a person to live happily as long as he or she lives, but it is imperative to live honorably, as long as the person lives. A person does not have the right to commit suicide because he or she is suffering. A man should not commit suicide because of these things. Thus, happiness is not a value that justifies suicide, and hence, an individual should not take his or her life because he or she is not happy.

Shortcomings Regarding Kant’s Arguments

Kant believes that it is wrong for people to commit suicide when they are troubled. Kant’s opinions for the evil of committing suicide are feeble. In Grounding, Kant’s arguments regarding the badness of self-killing take two forms (Budić 100). This is dependent on whether it is argued from the view of the 1st or 2nd formulation. Given that the numerous formulations of the categorical imperative reveal the different perspectives of perceiving the same principle, these forms should reach a similar conclusion. The principle that forbids self-killing is derived from the rule of universalization. Notably, Kant’s argument regarding self-killing focuses on a motive to avoid evil. Evil is a broad term that encompasses suffering (Kant 50). There is no reason it should prohibit a person from committing suicide if this person feels guilty after misconduct and agrees with Kant’s defenses of judicial execution.

According to Kant, suicide is immoral because it is against the self-love that was there initially. However, this argument is not compelling. Notably, suicide wrongness is situated in a contradiction in the laws of nature. Hence, to eliminate the wrongness specified by an inconsistency in the law of nature, people have to readdress the contradiction (Cholbi 505). It can be claimed that suicide encompasses no contradiction, perversion, or violation in any natural law if individuals repudiate that life promotion through self-love is a law of nature. Indeed, a principle of self-love does not promote a person continued life irrespective of whether it is motivationally inert or ert in any specific situation. Definitely, a feeling of self-love might be enough to avert a person from self-killing. Nevertheless, if the person commits suicide, this shows that his or her feeling of self-love is insufficient. On the contrary, Kant’s argument envisages a scenario in which people may be discussing suicide attractions (Kant 57). However, they may desist from it because they believed they have the self-love ability.

Additionally, Kant’s perception that a suicide maxim cannot be universalized also fails. The reason is that it can be universalized on standard elucidations of the universalization test. A universal choice to suicide when an individual is troubled with life to produce a contradiction in conception (Vong 656). Certainly, it would not prevent an individual’s maxim. This person’s success as suicide does not rely on another person’s hewing to life. On the other hand, a universalized suicide maxim does not thwart that person’s interest, creating a contradiction in a will. The will of a person to commit suicide is bent on renouncing additional interests or is interested in ending suffering, and both will be accomplished through suicide. Therefore, a universalized suicide maxim would not challenge a personal interest (Budić 106). Indeed, the universalizability test fails for suicide. It appears effortless to make a suicide maxim universal with no contradiction.

Given the prevalent impulse to self-preservation, a desire to self-killing may confound people. However, Kant cannot be asserting that self-killing is inconsistent with nature, considered teleologically. Teleological explanations are found in the metaphysics of morals (Cholbi 511). These elucidations argue that they are impulses of nature regarding the animality of a man. Through these impulses’ nature focuses on a man’s self-preservation, species preservation, and the preservation of man’s capacity to enjoy life. The vice included is committing suicide. In this case, committing suicide is condemned for violating the purposes of nature in providing individuals with the impulses it has provided them. But this is not the reason why a suicide maxim cannot be universally accepted. For Kant, teleology is a regulative concept. It assists in organizing people’s investigations of nature, not as they wish or imagines it to be, but as they find it (Kant 60). People must question themselves about the purposes of nature, but where things do not fit people’s story, they should not be rejected rather revised. Elsewhere, Kant speculates the desires for a man to commit suicide, that seemingly purposively, drive civilization forward. A teleological puzzle is created by law in cases where a pursuit for agreeableness occasionally inclines towards self-destruction and occasionally inclines towards self-preservation (Vong 657). Nature teleologically conceived can endure a universalized suicide maxim.

Autonomy, Rationality, And Personhood

For Kant, Autonomy is the basis of dignity in human nature. A person can set goals and purposes and follow them according to the moral law, in which the individual’s autonomy mirrors itself. A person acts autonomously when he or she acts according to the moral law. In the Kantian view, a person is a moral term in which it signifies responsible people for their actions and deserves to be respected (Budić 112). An individual must act in accordance with the laws of the reason, as well as the reason itself. People whose living does not rely on their will and are not rational but have relative value on nature are referred to as things. Kant distinguishes people who lack the ability to be moral beings and those with the ability when using the term person. A person refers to respect and dignity.

Dignity and Conditions of The Body

A forthright manner to avoid Kant’s argument against self-killing is to argue the committing suicide protects the dignity of rational nature and expresses respect for humanity’s worth. In this context, individuals with a troubled life may commit suicide to prevent worsening into undignified conditions (Budić 112). Besides, a person may commit suicide because he or she is in an undignified condition. Validating this assertion rest on how the assertion that trouble life threatens a persons’ dignity is to be understood. On the one hand, a troubled life is constitutive of an undignified condition. Enduring severe discomfort, suffer cognitive impairment because of illnesses, and be reliant on other people for their own’s nutritive or hygienic needs are instances that lead to living in an undignified condition (Vong 657). Indeed, this perspective mirrors human dignity in accordance with the dignity that comprises traits such as efficacy, self-discipline, and self-sufficiency in interacting with the world.

However, problems with raising this perception of dignity exist in an allegedly Kantian justification of prudential suicide. For instance, such elucidations closely endorse the assertion that such indignities are wrong for the people who encounter them. They may be wrong for people because they are answerable for indignities that are themselves bad for the people or maybe bad for the people in and of themselves. However, no justification for prudential suicide can appeal to the person of the situations that suicides circumvent (Cholbi 511). Once more, such self-killings would not be allowed because a person would be treating his rational nature in a way to the accomplishment of his or her welfares.

According to Kant, dignity is not a condition of the body. It is a property that a person can lose due to conditions such as cognitive impairment and pain. According to the Kantian argument, dignity is not a property of moral agents founded by apparent empirical evidence regarding them (Kant 56-57). Dignity is a capacity people have because of their rational nature. Therefore, it is an inner property of moral agents. Hence, this capacity is not entirely apparent in any empirical evidence about people. Provided that people can exercise this ability principally and are alive, they have the dignity that prevents people from committing suicide (Budić 98). For Kant, therefore, dignity is not relinquished and not earned, and it is not a factor linked to the common comprehension of dignity. There may be a plausible argument for prudential suicide on the bases of a threat to dignity or loss of dignity. However, there is no Kant’s argument that credibly rests on such a principle.

Suicide, Virtue, And Life’s Meaning

Kant believes that suicide violates duties obliged to peoples themselves rather than duties people owe to others. Nevertheless, suicide raises questions such as whether committing suicide exemplifies virtue, which can be termed as ethical questions. If when it is determined that a particular situation of suicide is morally right, questions remain regarding whether the act exemplifies the best way to live and to commit suicide (Cholbi 514). Therefore, people may be compelled to supplement the idea of interpersonal rights and obligation with the idea of vices and virtues when contemplating the full normative account of suicide. Moreover, self-killing poses normative questions that are not apparently moral, like how suicide may detract or contribute to the meaningfulness of a person’s life.

Overall, Kant is a noteworthy opposer of suicide. His argument draws upon his perception of moral worth as originating from the autonomous rational wills of people. According to Kant, people’s rational will are the source of their moral duty. Suicide violates the duties people owe to themselves. Agents who commit suicide violate moral law. Indeed, the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is important to condemn suicide in society. The consequences of suicide lead to the ruining of life, and this may ultimately endanger the future development of human societies. It is better to get it wrong on the side of preserving life than the side of letting it be lost.