Analyzing Kant's Categorical Imperative

Kant 's Categorical Imperative states that there are unconditional requirements that must be obeyed no matter the circumstances; a few of those requirements being that lying, stealing, and murdering should all be absolutely prohibited no matter what, even if doing any of those things would bring about more happiness than not. To look at it another way, he poses two questions: "Can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act?" and "Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes?" If the answer to both of the questions is "no," then Kant says we must not perform the action because it would be unethical. I do not agree with this "absolute" argument because fairly often there are moral and ethical dilemmas that contradict this claim. An example of a morally ambiguous situation that would contradict this argument could be an instance in which you or a family member is in danger. In this predicament, one might try to defend oneself …show more content…
Simply saying that this is how society should be does not mean that is how it is. There are many amoral people that engage in these sorts of situations almost every day, even though society 's rules exist to keep them from doing so. Kant 's Imperative would only be applicable in a society where there are no social deviants and everyone always follows the rules. Theoretically, in this society, moral grey areas would not exist, and everyone could function on absolutes, but when this is applied to our society as it is now, there are simply too many people who do not fall under the category of moral and ethical. How can we impose these absolute rules on a society that is anything but? Kant does not offer an explanation, though he