My purpose in this essay is to explain and evaluate the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. According to this formulation, whenever someone considers performing an action, it must be something that they would will or accept that all others do. While this formulation does have its advantages, such as that it provides justice for everyone, overall, I do not find this formulation plausible. Since every situation is different, it makes it hard to have universal rules.
The Categorical Imperative is the root of Kant’s moral theory. It is used as Kant’s decision procedure, to test the permissibility of an action. It provides a way to evaluate moral actions and to make moral judgments. It is not a command that requires you to do specific …show more content…
Therefore, it is universal. Since Kant believes morality is not about producing a good consequence, his basic moral principle is formal and without content. Knowing all this helps to understand the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s own statement for this imperative is, “So act on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a universal law.” According to this formulation, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I would will or accept that all others do. For something to be willed universal, it is similar to it being a law because a law has a degree of universality. By the maxim, Kant means an action that will be tested. If a maxim passes the universalizability test, then it is permissible for one to act on this maxim. The Categorical Imperative is essentially a logical test and consists of calculating whether the maxim could be consistently willed as a universal …show more content…
In Kant’s view, lying is always wrong because we should only do certain actions that we would want to be adopted universally. If everyone was to lie, we would be following the rule that it is permissible to lie. This would lead to people not believing one another, and then there would be no point to lie. Therefore, we should not lie. The problem with this argument, however, is that we can lie without simply believing that it is permissible to lie. Instead, we might be following a rule that is related to a certain circumstance, like lying to save someone’s life. Every situation is unique, and therefore, universal rules are not much use in a world where every situation is different. It is hard to judge actions as they stand alone. The rule might be do not kill, but in self-defense, it might be necessary. If we view a self-defensive murder according to the Categorical Imperative, it is wrong to murder no matter the consequence, good or bad. What if killing the attacker was the only method to save one’s life? Would it be morally wrong to murder? Too many contradictions and unsteady situations can appear to challenge this formulation, and that is why I do not find this formulation
The Categorical Imperative is the root of Kant’s moral theory. It is used as Kant’s decision procedure, to test the permissibility of an action. It provides a way to evaluate moral actions and to make moral judgments. It is not a command that requires you to do specific …show more content…
Therefore, it is universal. Since Kant believes morality is not about producing a good consequence, his basic moral principle is formal and without content. Knowing all this helps to understand the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s own statement for this imperative is, “So act on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a universal law.” According to this formulation, whatever I consider doing, it must be something that I would will or accept that all others do. For something to be willed universal, it is similar to it being a law because a law has a degree of universality. By the maxim, Kant means an action that will be tested. If a maxim passes the universalizability test, then it is permissible for one to act on this maxim. The Categorical Imperative is essentially a logical test and consists of calculating whether the maxim could be consistently willed as a universal …show more content…
In Kant’s view, lying is always wrong because we should only do certain actions that we would want to be adopted universally. If everyone was to lie, we would be following the rule that it is permissible to lie. This would lead to people not believing one another, and then there would be no point to lie. Therefore, we should not lie. The problem with this argument, however, is that we can lie without simply believing that it is permissible to lie. Instead, we might be following a rule that is related to a certain circumstance, like lying to save someone’s life. Every situation is unique, and therefore, universal rules are not much use in a world where every situation is different. It is hard to judge actions as they stand alone. The rule might be do not kill, but in self-defense, it might be necessary. If we view a self-defensive murder according to the Categorical Imperative, it is wrong to murder no matter the consequence, good or bad. What if killing the attacker was the only method to save one’s life? Would it be morally wrong to murder? Too many contradictions and unsteady situations can appear to challenge this formulation, and that is why I do not find this formulation