The Categorical Imperative - Essay Example

This imperative is always existent and is a morally good act or a priori. Simply, it is assumed to be a moral good in itself. Kant, a deontologist and philosopher, asserts that there are certain things that people are entitled to do, regardless of their repercussions. For instance, he perceives that people have an obligation to always stand for the truth. It is pertinent for anyone to find their moral obligations via the use of hard logic or reasoning.

According to Kant, people begin to instill knowledge of the categorical imperative when they start to question and contemplate the nature of ethics. Moreover, Kant asserts that acting with regard to morals is practically intricate and should not be easy especially in cases when one has a conviction to do something else. This apparently implies that acting morally may encompass people to act within a state of emotional detachment. For instance, reasons why smokers find it hard to quit smoking knowing that it is a morally wrong act is questionable.

In his categorical imperative, Kant states that moral truth is a concept beyond human experience and it is practically intricate to depend on senses to learn its meaning. In addition to moral truths being prior, they aid people to infer what it actually means to act morally and more so, comprehend why doing something or behaving in a certain manner is a morally good thing to do and this is through the use of reason. Kant explains that reason leads to moral actions but does not follow.

Kant argues that the contemporary ethical debate starts with an assumption that a person requires free will for them to be morally accountable. Regardless of the fact that one may do good under instruction, Kant argues this to be a moral accident and not necessarily a moral act. Therefore, to qualify in acting in a truly moral manner, someone ought to choose to execute something by themselves.

However, for Sigmund Freud, we cannot ever be completely sure of our actual motives. Moreover, it is intricate to establish what our desires are, what we want. This results from our reserved emotions and additionally, our subconscious, which does not completely unravel its intentions in the conscious life. Therefore, Freud contrasts the Kantian categorical imperative with the argument that we are nonetheless, the reason for our actions and deeds. This notably disputes the Kantian idea of rational agency.

Moreover, Freud argues that the categorical imperative is not flexible as duties and responsibilities may clash. In addition, Freud asserts that Kant’s argument is overtly pragmatic and dependent on his belief in God. He also adds that cultures differ greatly in terms of their beliefs and moral goods, evil and wrongs. Therefore, conscience is purely dependent upon needs and education among others.

Freud critiques dependence upon conscience due to much belief in God. He stipulates that moral obligations may be aimed at self-preservation. Freud also stipulates that rationality is based on a person’s reasoning and thus the categorical imperative may not be the cause for our actions. It is also not succinct whether upholding or breaking the categorical imperative would be better and that moral awareness is not of divine origin.