Critique Of Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

There are subsets of actions and qualities that allow for use to live a good life in a Kantian view. These actions and qualities are defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant and solidified with the creation of what we know as the Categorical Imperative, which is the guiding principle for all our actions. This imperative is based on the premise of whether or not we would like your view/action or maxim to be blown up and imposed on a global scale. With this imperative, Kant provides a foundation for our moral compass. What we do must always fit within this imperative so that we can become a virtuous being and in turn become happy. For Kant, Happiness and Virtue are the two goals for which we must strive for, and all things we do must come together …show more content…
In simpler terms, a person cannot be denied of their freedom or reason for someone else’s use. The actions of the husband are a contradiction to this idea completely. He is using himself as an instrument to bring about happiness for his spouse. Although it may seem as a self gesture, this type of self-sacrifice is not moral and In fact, another philosopher, Thomas Hill, would call it an indicator of a moral defect. The husband is embodying Thomas Hill’s concept of servility.
Servility is a moral defect, that in Hill’s opinion, is at some points is vicious as arrogance. Hill defines servility as an attitude that defies an aspect of self-respect. Defying one’s self is completely against Kant’s moral injunction. Self-denial is the epitome of the removal of freedom, which is one of the key aspects that Kant points out as being necessary for morality.
However, why does Hill believe this about servility? Hill supports his argument with illustrating three patterns of servility through the lens of three personas that he created; “Uncle Tom” “The Self Deprecator” and, the example which mirrors our situation, “The Deferential