Categorical Imperative

• “Two things fill the mind with

ever new and increasing
wonder and awe: the starry
heavens above me and the
moral law within me.”
• Critique of Practical Reason

Mario R. Echano
 The Categorical Imperatives
• Kant’s Copernican Revolution
– What can I know?
– What ought I do?
– What can I hope for?
• Deontology vs Teleology
– What is wrong with Teleological Morality?
– Good Will
– Duty
• Categorical vs Hypothetical
– The three Formulations (Tests) for a Categorical Imperative
– Objections to the Three Tests)
– What can I hope for?
 Kant’s influences…

Plato Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)

The Age of Enlightenment, the

Enlightenment, the Age of Reason)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau Martin Luther

David Hume (1711 –1776) Lutherans (1483-1546)
(1712 - 1778)
 Kant’s Copernican Revolution
• Where does Copernicus 1473-
1543) place us in the physical
universe?
– Turned astronomy inside-out with his
heliocentric hypothesizing
• Where does Kant (1724-1804)
place us in the moral universe?
– What can I know?- Kant turned
epistemology inside-out by theorising
that objective reality depends on the
mind (instead of the other way round).
– What ought I to do? Morality depends
purely on the individual moral agent as
the giver of the law.
 Teleological Types of Morality
• Telos: Final Cause, End, Purpose
• Based on God’s Will (Outside
imposition)
– Difficulty of knowing God’s Will. Self-
Deception. Open to Abuse
• Based on Human Nature
– Not very clear
– No Agreement
• Happiness
– Worst: Arbitrary
• These Types of Morality are always
conditional.
 Happiness vs. Reason

• Morality motivates us to act

• Our actions must be brought
about by either reason or
happiness.
• Happiness is conditional: what
makes people happy differs, and
happiness can be good or bad.
• But reason is universal.
Categorical. Unconditional.
 Deontology – Assessing Acts
• Ens. Being. Ontology
• Morality is a matter of duty and
obligation.
• Actions are right or wrong in
themselves.
• Whether something is right or wrong
doesn’t depend on its consequences.
• But on the way choosers think when
they make choices.
• We each have duties regarding our
own actions: we are autonomous
moral agents.
 Quickfire Questions
1. What two things fill Kant with wonder and
awe?
1. What could the starry heavens mean?
2. What is this law within him?
2. What is Kant’s ‘Copernican Revolution’?
3. Why does morality based on God’s will
disadvantageous?
4. What is wrong with morality based on
human nature?
5. Why is morality based on happiness the
worst kind?
6. Fill in the blanks: A_______ M_____
A_______...
7. Why reason, not happiness? Why duty,
not inclination?
 The Good Will
• Good acts Commonly
understood are those done
in good will.
• Angel sang “PEACE to the
People of Good Will”
Biblical?
• Conformity of what is
internal to what is external.
– gives us inherent dignity as
autonomous moral agents
 More about the Will
• What makes the will good?
– when it acts out of duty, not out of inclination.
• What does it mean to act out of inclination?
– To do something because it makes you feel good
– To act in the hope of gaining something from it
– –to maximize your happiness.
• What does it mean to act out of duty?
– when you act out of respect for the moral law.
• How do act out of duty?
– we must know what the moral law is.
• How do we know that?
– we use the "Categorical Imperative."
 What is an imperative?
• An imperative is just a command.
– Do X or Don’t X.
• 3 kinds of Imperatives
• Technical : When you want something done well
it is imperative that follow certain requirements.
• Prudential: When you want good working
relationship, it is imperative to behave well.
• Moral: You do it as it is a duty.
• hypothetical imperative is a command that
presupposes some further goal or end
– i.e. if I want X I should do Y
– If you want to live in peace
 In other words,
• A categorical imperative is not
hypothetical. It is unconditional.
– Hypothetical, means to ends, i.e. do X for p.
– Categorical, without condition.
– It is irrational and immoral not to obey it. DO
X for X.
• For Kant, morality = categorical
imperatives
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
• The test of Universality
• Morality is universal, the same for
everyone:
– “Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to be
[legitimately binding] has to carry absolute
necessity with it…” Kant, Groundwork for the
Metaphysics of Morals
• The moral imperative (law) must be obeyed.
• And when we act, we act on maxims or
practical principles of action.
• so “Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law”.
 The three formulations of the
Categorical Imperative
• Formula of Universal Law: "Act as if
the maxim of your action were to
secure through your will a universal
law of nature"
• Formula of Humanity: "Act so that
you treat humanity, whether in your
own person or that of another, always
as an end and never as a means
only"
• Formula of Autonomy: “Act as if
you were through your maxims a law
making member of a kingdom of
ends."
 Quickfire Questions
1. What is Kant’s ‘Good
Will’?
2. What is the difference
between a hypothetical
and a categorical
imperative?
3. What do the phrases
‘Universal Law’,
‘Humanity’, ‘Autonomy’
refer to?
 What is a Categorical Imperative?
• First test: Test of Universality
• How to know whether an act passes the
universality. Make it a maxim (rules of conduct
): A LAW.
• Two further rules for maxims - pass = a
possible CI
• First, generalise the maxim and see if it makes
sense.
• ‘contradiction in conception’ or ‘self-
contradiction’
– A maxim is wrong if the situation in which
everyone acted on that maxim is somehow self-
contradictory.
– Take stealing: If we could all just help ourselves
to whatever we wanted, the idea of ‘owning’
things would disappear;
– And then no one would be able to steal.
 The Categorical Imperative
• Second: “contradiction in will” (a.k.a.
‘reversibility’) You put yourself in one’s shoes.
• If the maxim you’re testing isn’t self-
contradictory
– then ask: would you choose to live in a world
where it was followed by everyone
– as then it would apply to you as an individual
– would you mind being governed by it?
• It is logically possible to universalise some
unpleasant maxims
– e.g. ‘don’t help others in need’
• But we can’t will this maxim, because we might
need help ourselves.
• So such a maxim is not ‘reversible’.
• So it cannot be willed without contradiction.
 The case of the false promise
• Kant’s example about non-contradiction
• Maxim: “I may make a false promise in
order to reap financial gain.”
• Generalized: Anyone may make a false
promise to get something s/he wants.
• This is self-contradictory because:
– If anyone may make a "false promise," nobody
would take a promise seriously; promising
becomes meaningless.
– Result: I may not act on that maxim, as the maxim
fails the ‘contradiction in conception’ test.
 Stealing, Lying
• Similar reasoning leads Kant to conclude
that any maxim permitting theft or lying
must be rejected. Why…?
– A thief's maxim, once generalized, would
overturn the institution of property,
– but unless the institution of property exists, there
can be no theft.
– A liar's maxim, once generalised, would overturn
the assumption of truthfulness,
– but without this assumption, no lie can even be
attempted.
The case of The Bad Samaritan
• Kant’s example about reversibility
• Maxim: I may refuse to help another person in
distress who cannot pay me even though I could
do so at little cost to myself.
• Generalised: Anyone may refuse to help another
person in distress who cannot pay her even
though it would cost her little to help.
• Can it be conceived without contradiction? Yes.
• So being mean passes the non-contradiction test
for it to be a Categorical Imperative:
 The Bad Samaritan II
• But does it pass the test of
Reversibility?
– Could you will yourself in the same position?
– Probably not, because you might find
yourself in a situation of extreme need and
nobody else would help you.
– If this did happen to you, you would wish to
be helped.
• So the Bad Samaritan maxim is not
reversible
• Hence not really universalisable.
• Result: You cannot act on the "Bad
Samaritan" maxim.
• But: ‘contradiction in will’ test - logical
force...?
 Man as an End
• Another test whether an act is a categorical
Imperative: Man as an END

 The specific end of every action is the humanity

in my own and in the person of every other.

 The humanity present in everyone puts a limit on

what is permissible.

What does it mean to treat the humanity in our

own or in the person of any other “always at the
same time as an end”?
“Act always in such a way that
you treat humanity whether in
your own, or in the person of any
other, never merely as a means,
but always at the same time as
an end.”
 Objection to Man as End
“The difficulty of applying Kant’s
formula…has led some ethicists to
dismiss it entirely.” [Ronald Green]

W. D. Ross: “homiletic value”

Marcus Singer: [I]t has more an

emotional uplift than a definite
meaning.
 Consent Principle
• What does it mean to treat the humanity in our own
or in the person of any others “merely as means”?
It is alright to treat people however you wish as long as
they consent to being that way.

Some people might consent to being in an abusive

relationship

Does it make the act of the abuser permissible?

Possible Consent

“An agent treats another merely as a means and

thus wrongly if in his treatment of the other the
agent does something to which the other
cannot consent.”

Onora O’Neill, “Between Consenting Adults,” Constructions of

Reason (Cambridge, 1989)
 Example
A jogger passes a man in jogging clothes
lying at the side of a path and, on closer
inspection, finds the man neither
conscious nor breathing. He calls for help
but no one responds so he performs
cardiopulmonary resuscitation and
succeeds in getting the man to breathe
again.

Is the action of the jogger morally

impermissible? Did he treat the
unconscious man merely as means?
“He who has it in mind to make a
false promise to others sees at once
that he wants to make use of another
human being merely as a means,
without the other at the same time
containing in himself the end. For, he
whom I want to use for my purposes
by such a promise cannot possibly
agree to my way of behaving toward
him, and so himself contain the end
of this action.”
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the
End Sharing

To treat another as a means is to express

disrespect for his rational nature

“A false promise, because its end cannot

be shared by the person to whom the
promise is made, frustrates or circumvents
that person’s rational agency and thereby
shows disrespect for it.”
Allen Wood, Kant’s Ethical Thought (Cambridge, 1999)
The agent treats the other
merely as a means if the other
cannot share the agent’s end
in treating her in some way.

Is it logically impossible for

someone (the lender) to be
able to share the end of the
agent (the borrower)
Suppose that Maria Nadal and Serena
Federer competing in the women’s
singles final at the Wimbledon tennis
tournament. At stake is the number one
ranking for the year, which each player
has, and has announced publicly, as her
goal. In this case, Maria is using Serena
as her means to become the top player
of the year; moreover, since Maria
cannot expect Serena to share her end,
Maria would be using Serena merely as
a means. So her action to win over
Serena would be morally impermissible.
 Autonomy
• Test whether an act is a
categorical Imperative.
• Auto+Nomos
• Self-Rule
• Not imposed by anybody else
but you. Your own inner self
know what you must do.
• Freedom.
 Autonomy
• Freedom does not consist in being bound
by no law. But by laws of my own making.
• Autonomous States. Laws are not
imposed by people outside, but their own
making.
• Self-Rule.
 Other objections to Kant
• Exceptionless rules are extremely dangerous.
• The standard is an inhuman one against which to
judge our actions.
– Isnt it a very high standard? Is it possible not
to use people in order to obtain your goals or
seek an edge or unfair advantage? Might this
not make us goal-less?
– Surely our natural desires are worthy? Would
Kant really view parental love for children as
immoral?
• Doesn’t duty sound rather like habit? Isn’t it
better to do things from inclination? Suppose I am
inclined to hit you but control myself – surely this is
more valuable to you than someone who is just
nice to you from habit?
 Further objections to Kant
• What role does character play in all this? Would
a habitually moral scumbag be possible?
• The choices necessary to live a good life could
involve actions which entail results incompatible
with happiness.
• How far should respect for persons go?
• Can we imagine circumstances where contingent
circumstances might really matter?
• Can we imagine circumstances where
imperatives might clash?
 Some strengths of Kant
• Man as an end: People cannot be
exploited.
– People have rights which would supersede, for
example, the tyranny of the majority in
utilitarianism.
• Achieving good ends by despicable
means is ruled out.
• We avoid the many problems to do with
weighing up and working out
consequences.
• We don’t have the issue of explaining
why or how we have moral intuitions.
 Questions
1. What is the contradiction in conception test?
2. What is a maxim?
3. What is the contradiction in will test?
4. What is wrong with lying?
5. What is wrong with not helping?
6. What is wrong with liking helping?
7. What is wrong with loving your children?
8. What is wrong with inclination, and what does Kant
prefer?
9. What shines like a star for its own sake?
10. Name each of the three formulations of the Categorical
Imperative.
 What is there to hope for?
• A moral World
• Community of Ends
• Moral Postulates:
– God
– Freedom
– Immortality
 Categorical Imperative
• “Two things fill the mind with
ever new and increasing
wonder and awe: the starry
heavens above me and the
moral law within me.”
• Critique of Practical Reason

Mario R. Echano October 9, 2018