Kantian Categorical Imperative Theory - Essay Example

Categorical Imperative Decision Theory Kantian Categorical Imperative theory is the most preferred theory that explains decisionmaking under any given circumstances by any individual. This is because; the CI theory precisely elaborates the presence of a self governing reasons in each individual that makes it imperative for each individual to be treated with equal worth, and deserving equal respect. The theory correctly articulates how individuals make moral decisions based on rationality, and thus any immoral or irrational acts go against the categorical imperative theory. Thus CI is the fundamental principle that governs morality and the effects of decisions; it is the ultimate law of exercising an autonomous will by an individual (McCormick, 2005). For example, CI requires that a rational individual is moral if the end of their actions is to promote the good of all. Therefore, CI is the best theory in precisely articulating human reasoning and decision making, and relating these to free human will compared to other decision theories. Moral actions are indicative of rationality, with an immoral action indicating irrationality in an individual. A moral action has to be universal in that it has to stand true in any event anywhere. For example, stealing is immoral; it causes pain to the owner while it may result to pleasure in the one stealing. Causing pain is immoral as it leads to suffering, implying that such an act when committed by a rational being would be immoral. Stealing is thus a crime universally as it violates CI theory, which is a universal law of morals. Being a universal law, Kantian CI becomes the best theory that explains why individuals have to decide in a certain way. For example, considering the relational Dialects theory in a similar case, the theory requires us to consider issues around us, which help people to construct meaning in any relation. Thus the theory is based on specific circumstances as it requires one to consider cultural and social rational systems. This implies the theory applies to multicultural diversity (Turner, 2004). Thus stealing according to this theory may be justified in some cases as it directs people to construct certain meanings in a specific setting of relationships. On the other hand, the how we decide theory is largely based on observable behavior from outside as one cannot access the mind of the individual. For example, asking why does a an individual steal would lead to detailed examinations of their behaviors and history in finding elements that may explain such behaviors in deciding if the individual is actually on the wrong. Such an observation may sometimes be inaccurate and may lead to a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the advantage of CI theory is that it is based on a universal law and is not relative as the other two theories, which depend on specific circumstances. The issue of personal freedom in making a decision is of much importance, and precisely bestows the responsibility of an action on the particular individual. As Kant’s CI theory explains, freedom is an important element in reasoning, whose function cannot be ignored. Thus, without assuming freedom, an individual cannot act (McCormick, 2005). In other words, an individual is not a robot or causal agent that only serves to implement orders. Thinking in such direction would deny humanity its own existence and purpose. Freedom is thus a central focus in decision making and reasoning; an individual is at will to decide in any direction. In this theory, Kant places the consequence of each action on the specific individual, and not on a system of events that may be explained to be the causal agents behind such an action. However, considering the how we decide theory, the major limitation is the assumption that humans are not rational. Thus, the theory traces human action not from the specific individual, but from a system of factors and history that plays to shape and define human actions. This would relegate humanity to being a causal agent that is not responsible for their actions; this would be denying the existence of reasoning, or the will to act. Moreover, Relational Dialectics theory places humanity in a system of events that affects how they act in a specific way. The theory largely deals with systems from which relational partners construct meanings, and from which patterns in actions and behaviors are established. Thus, these patterns are considered to explain the occurrence of a personal behavior in a certain way. CI theory by recognizing the essence of humanity in the freedom to make decisions out of free will, it addresses humanity in its right context, and not in influence of external factors. The theory is thus better in describing how individuals decide among various options, as they have the power of reasoning and a free will that lacks in the other two theories. Individuals are responsible for their intentions and will, but not for the end results of their actions. According to CI theory, when we act in a certain way, whether or not the intended end is actualized, the end result is beyond the individual’s control. Therefore as Kant’s theory explains, the morality of an individual’s actions does not depend on the final outcome, but on the intent such an act was based on (McCormick, 2005). For example, an individual who steals food because of hunger barely steals the food to maintain his life, and not for a financial gain that would be obtained after selling such food. Thus though the individual commits a crime in stealing, the intent was right and justifiable; the will and not be said to be immoral. Thus the theory provides justifications for myriad actions that may seem wrong, but committed for the right reason and justifies the morality in such actions. The Relational Dialectic Theory is a relational theory that does not envision such scenarios, but only explain that individuals construct meaning depending on their specific issues. Likewise, the how we decide theory is much more scientific and goes deeper to studying the brain operational mechanisms, evolution, and how different systems affect human behaviors their decisions. The rationality of humans is in question, making this theory unable to explain decision making in a rational human as CI theory explains. Kant’s Categorical imperative explains the relation between man and nature by explaining that the mind is responsible for structuring nature as it seeks for higher grounds of explanation, in trying to achieve a single unified knowledge of nature. Thus people are not merely subject to the farces acting upon them; individuals are not just means to ends, but individuals are the end themselves (McCormick, 2005). Therefore an individual in order to understand nature will use reasoning in understanding a unified knowledge regarding nature. The laws of nature cannot be contradictory, which implies that anything that cannot be willed to be a law of nature would not be moral. The fact that individuals are an end by themselves explains that individuals are responsible for making decisions that shape nature. For example, people decide to increase commercial and industrial activities through cheaper and available energy sources resulting in increased greenhouse gases; nature has responded through extreme weather patterns and other pollution related effects. Therefore, any maxim that fails to pass the universal law in categorical imperative criteria results in a contradiction. Decisions are thus made to shape nature. The other two theories by rejecting the premise on individual being rational deny that individuals are the end themselves and are not prone to reshaping by the forces of nature but are themselves the agents to restructure nature. However, the theory is limited to only those actions that are carried out voluntarily, and which result from a logical reasoning by the individual; actions out of a will `to achieve a certain end. Therefore, involuntary actions or those that are done under duress, they cannot pass this criterion as they are not carried out by free will, and through an individual’s reasoning. Kantian Categorical Imperative is a profound theory that best explains how individuals make decisions and the effects of such decisions. The theory properly articulates the use of reasoning by individuals to attain certain ends on amoral scale. Moreover, the CI theory explains that humans being rational beings use their reasoning to choose between that which is good or bad through their intents and not their actions. In other words any action by a rational individual is well figured out through willing to achieve certain ends, which dictates the nature of the act as moral or immoral. The other two theories largely reject the premise of humans being rational beings, making the theories to treat humans as a means to an end and not the end itself. Such theories treat man as a causal agent and not as an initiator of an action, making them limited in their capacity to explain human reasoning. Therefore, CI theory is more comprehensive in elaborating how people make decisions compared to the other two theories. Work Cited McCormick, Matt. Immanuel Kant: Metaphysics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 30th June, 2005. http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/ 4th Nov. 2012 Turner F. Lynn and West Richard. Relational Dialectics Theory. McGraw Hill Companies, 2004. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0767430344/student_view0/chapter12/ 4th Nov. 2012 Read More