Categorical and Practical Imperative Immanuel Kant Categorical and Practical Imperative

Kant Offers Us A Nonconsequential Standard

Nonconsequential vs. Consequential Standards The moral worth of an action is determined by the end or consequent it promotes. There is nothing about the action itself that makes it morally good or bad. Example: Utilitarianism Nonconsequential The end or consequent of an act has nothing to do with its moral worth. There is something about the act itself, intrinsic to it, such that we are morally obligated to do or not to do the action. Example: Kant’s imperative

Kant’s Imperatives are Nonconsequential

There are two types of nonconsequential standards Act Rule

Act Nonconsequential Humans are capable of figuring out which acts we should perform and which we should avoid That is, we can have insight into the actions and their qualities

Rule Nonconsequential Humans are too limited to have insight into actions Therefore, we need help E.g., the Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory God gives us that help God does have insight into actions, and God knows what actions are good and what actions are bad God guides us by giving us commandments/rules to follow, since we cannot determine actions’ goodness or badness ourselves

Kant’s Imperatives are rules/tests that we can use to help us determine how we should act Humans are too limited to see into the goodness or badness of actions We need help We have help We have two tests Categorical Imperative Practical Imperative

Main Points of the Imperatives Nothing but a morally good will is unconditionally good Moral goodness depends on principle, not consequences

Main Points of the Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a universal law. What does that mean? It means you should only do those actions that you would will/wish that everyone in the universe would also do without involving a contradiction E.g., Is it morally good to make a promise that you know you will not keep? Can you will that everyone make promises that they know they will not keep and not result in a contradiction? No; if everyone made promises they know they would not keep then the whole institution of promise making would break down because no one would believe anyone else. So such an action is immoral.

Main Points of the Practical Imperative Distinguishes between treating someone as a means and treating them as a mere means Practical imperative: Always act so as to treat others as having dignity and worthy of respect. Never treat others as a mere means to your end. Treating them as a mere means involves deceit.

As your publisher puts it: “Kant argues that the moral worth of an action consists solely in the principle that motivates it and not in any consequences that might follow from it. A morally valid principle is one that can serve as a universal law, applicable to all at any time or in any place, without resulting in a contradiction. Such a principle is "categorical" (as opposed to "hypothetical"); it enjoins an action that is good of itself and not merely as a means to another end. Because humanity, in oneself or in others, is of absolute worth, Kant is able to give the categorical imperative a second formulation: So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”

In Sum: What should we base our moral decisions on? Do not worry about consequences; they have nothing to do with the morality of your proposed action. Apply either imperative: the categorical or the practical Look at the intent of your action Is it to treat someone with dignity and respect or is it to deceit someone for your gain? Are you treating the person as a means or as a mere means?