The major role and function of Kant’s categorical imperative is basically to define a mechanism and an approach through which an individual can judge and determine if his actions are moral or not (Paton, 1948). In applying his categorical imperative, Kant argues that the fundamental of moral actions or acts are that they are applied and used in a universal manner. In today’s rich cultural as well as diverse community, the need for universality has become highly problematic.
The fundamental function and role of Kant’s categorical imperative is to act or behave as a moral principle through which many other moral principles can be tested as well as measured. Thus, if a moral principle, what Kant refers to as “maxim” fulfills the principle of …show more content…
Also, a parallel but somewhat reworded account of the categorical imperative is that, “act and behave as if the maxim of your actions were to become through your will a universal law of nature.” The idea behind the “universal law” as well as “universal law of nature” is highly imperative to Kant’s principle. Moreover, the universality which Kant describes is the notion that a maxim would be regarded to be morally right at all the time, under each circumstance and for all the people. Thus, in the case of Ambrose as described above, Ambrose can ask himself, “would it be fine to steal an item of low monetary value and by doing so, would it be okay for everybody to always do the same thing?” William Kant would argue that through the application of reason that Ambrose would quickly realize that small-scale theft is not a thing that should be universally accepted. Ambrose would do this through considering, for instance, if it would be okay if somebody stole his son’s lunch money, something that Ambrose would never consider or regard to be right. Apparently, there are a number of situations in which an individual can see that stealing items that are of low value would not be desirable. Thus, the maxim in Ambrose’s case cannot be applied universally and therefore, it is not …show more content…
An obvious example of this is the debate about euthanasia where both the camps shield or support their arguments based on the principle of human dignity. The two sides include whether is it not dignified to endure prolonged suffering before dying , therefore, euthanasia is right verses, is it not dignified to have your life prematurely ended, and thus, euthanasia is not right. Whereas there are much emotions behind either of these conclusions, it is very possible that one can apply logic as well as reason in order to end up with either of these arguments based on a multiplicity of norms, values, life experiences, as well as cultural variations through which an individual can be able to filter all the rational
The fundamental function and role of Kant’s categorical imperative is to act or behave as a moral principle through which many other moral principles can be tested as well as measured. Thus, if a moral principle, what Kant refers to as “maxim” fulfills the principle of …show more content…
Also, a parallel but somewhat reworded account of the categorical imperative is that, “act and behave as if the maxim of your actions were to become through your will a universal law of nature.” The idea behind the “universal law” as well as “universal law of nature” is highly imperative to Kant’s principle. Moreover, the universality which Kant describes is the notion that a maxim would be regarded to be morally right at all the time, under each circumstance and for all the people. Thus, in the case of Ambrose as described above, Ambrose can ask himself, “would it be fine to steal an item of low monetary value and by doing so, would it be okay for everybody to always do the same thing?” William Kant would argue that through the application of reason that Ambrose would quickly realize that small-scale theft is not a thing that should be universally accepted. Ambrose would do this through considering, for instance, if it would be okay if somebody stole his son’s lunch money, something that Ambrose would never consider or regard to be right. Apparently, there are a number of situations in which an individual can see that stealing items that are of low value would not be desirable. Thus, the maxim in Ambrose’s case cannot be applied universally and therefore, it is not …show more content…
An obvious example of this is the debate about euthanasia where both the camps shield or support their arguments based on the principle of human dignity. The two sides include whether is it not dignified to endure prolonged suffering before dying , therefore, euthanasia is right verses, is it not dignified to have your life prematurely ended, and thus, euthanasia is not right. Whereas there are much emotions behind either of these conclusions, it is very possible that one can apply logic as well as reason in order to end up with either of these arguments based on a multiplicity of norms, values, life experiences, as well as cultural variations through which an individual can be able to filter all the rational