Kant’s categorical imperative commands consistent moral rules across diverse circumstances, providing the most logically consistent, although occasionally counterintuitive, basis for morality.
To understand Kant’s categorical imperative, one must first understand his other ideas, particularly the hypothetical imperative and the rationality of man. Kant describes an imperative as an action that helps fulfill one’s will. Hypothetical imperatives depend on a hypothetical will that one might have. In Kant’s formulation, any rational actor who wills outcomes must follow a hypothetical imperative, if applicable, because it is the rational expression of their will. For instance, “if you want good grades, then you should study” is a hypothetical …show more content…
Consider a serial killer who sparks terror across the city for his eight murders in the last three weeks, and who intends to continue his killing spree. A police officer, who has perfect knowledge of the situation, has found the killer, but cannot arrest him for complex legal reasons. He can, however, kill him immediately if he chooses. Although many people, utilitarians chief among them, would argue that the police officer should kill the serial killer, Kant’s categorical imperative is clear: Since the police officer cannot rationally desire a world in which everybody killed others to reduce crime, his maxim fails the test of a contradiction in the will. Therefore, he should act according to the maxim of not killing people, even if to prevent future violent actions. In this case, that would mean sparing the serial …show more content…
Since real-world actions often have unintentional or unpredictable consequences, consequentialism can attribute bad consequences to well-intended, carefully-considered actions. Kantian thinking, on the other hand, can praise an action as good or bad on its own merits, regardless of its capricious outcomes. Therefore, even when a well-intended action has bad outcomes, Kant’s view can recognize it as morally good. Take a philanthropist who gives ten thousand dollars to a charity to feed starving children in a war-torn country, but whose money ends up purchasing arms for bloodthirsty mercenaries instead. Under a consequentialist framework, the philanthropist’s actions would be judged by their consequences, and deemed immoral, even if he was a socially-conscious person attempting to help destitute youth. Kant would recognize the underlying maxim for his behavior, donating to charity to improve the lives of others, as contradictory neither in conception nor in will if universalized, and is therefore morally justified. In order to make sure that moral praise is assigned to the good actor – the philanthropist – and moral blame is assigned to the bad actor – the mercenaries – a Kantian rather than a consequentialist framework is
To understand Kant’s categorical imperative, one must first understand his other ideas, particularly the hypothetical imperative and the rationality of man. Kant describes an imperative as an action that helps fulfill one’s will. Hypothetical imperatives depend on a hypothetical will that one might have. In Kant’s formulation, any rational actor who wills outcomes must follow a hypothetical imperative, if applicable, because it is the rational expression of their will. For instance, “if you want good grades, then you should study” is a hypothetical …show more content…
Consider a serial killer who sparks terror across the city for his eight murders in the last three weeks, and who intends to continue his killing spree. A police officer, who has perfect knowledge of the situation, has found the killer, but cannot arrest him for complex legal reasons. He can, however, kill him immediately if he chooses. Although many people, utilitarians chief among them, would argue that the police officer should kill the serial killer, Kant’s categorical imperative is clear: Since the police officer cannot rationally desire a world in which everybody killed others to reduce crime, his maxim fails the test of a contradiction in the will. Therefore, he should act according to the maxim of not killing people, even if to prevent future violent actions. In this case, that would mean sparing the serial …show more content…
Since real-world actions often have unintentional or unpredictable consequences, consequentialism can attribute bad consequences to well-intended, carefully-considered actions. Kantian thinking, on the other hand, can praise an action as good or bad on its own merits, regardless of its capricious outcomes. Therefore, even when a well-intended action has bad outcomes, Kant’s view can recognize it as morally good. Take a philanthropist who gives ten thousand dollars to a charity to feed starving children in a war-torn country, but whose money ends up purchasing arms for bloodthirsty mercenaries instead. Under a consequentialist framework, the philanthropist’s actions would be judged by their consequences, and deemed immoral, even if he was a socially-conscious person attempting to help destitute youth. Kant would recognize the underlying maxim for his behavior, donating to charity to improve the lives of others, as contradictory neither in conception nor in will if universalized, and is therefore morally justified. In order to make sure that moral praise is assigned to the good actor – the philanthropist – and moral blame is assigned to the bad actor – the mercenaries – a Kantian rather than a consequentialist framework is