The Universal Law Formulation Of The Categorical Imperative - Essay Example

The Universal Law Formulation Of The Categorical Imperative The categorical imperative formulated by Immanuel Kant proposes that for an action or event to be moral it does not have to follow a set of predetermined rules or morals, but it should arise from the motive of the action. An action cannot be right or wrong of its own accord, but rather through its ability to be a means to an end. The criteria are considered universal, sensible, and impartial as its function is likened to the universality of all moral laws. Kant used three ways to express the categorical imperative. First,“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (31).This formulation has two duties to fulfill, the perfect duty and the imperfect duty. The perfect duty is that the maxim upon which it is being upon acted upon should not contradict with itself. For example, if the moral proposition said that it is permissible to kill everyone who insulted you. People would kill each other until the human race is almost extinct. This should not be the circumstance since this moral proposition proposes a maxim that would be harmful to society in the end.The imperfect duty of the moral proposition is that even without it, things would still function properly. It is hinged on morally binding values. There is no blame if the action is not done, but there will be praise if the action is done. For example, if someone failed to perform an act of charity, he is not morally wrong, and no one can blame him for not offering his charity. He will, however, be praised if he performed an act of charity. He is not bound to the one in need except for a moral binding in his conscience. For instance, if one chose to cultivate their talents. No one will blame them if they chose to ignore their talents.However, if, they polish their talents and good things come from the talent, the person is praised. Second,“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” (32).This formulation deals with the free will of all persons, which arises from rational action. Thus, if a person’s free will is not rational, then there is no freedom, as freedom is not entirely autonomous. A person’s actions affect others who are around him, and if a person’s free will interferes with the freedom of another person, then that action is not morally acceptable. For instance, a master may have a right to his slave. He has the right to own the services of his slave, but if the slave owner feels that he also owns the slave and that the slave is his own property, then he has devalued the slave to a means to an end and not an end in itself. This is morally wrong as it devalues humanity of the other person, in this case, the slave. A person has primarily the perfect duty to preserve humanity by using it in a manner that is a not a means to an end to themselves or to others. Then, with the imperfect duty, one should always strive to improve their humanity or other’s humanity for the good of all and as long as it does not inhibit the perfect duty. Third, Kant suggests that all rational beings must act as legislative members through their maxim, in the universal kingdom of ends. This formulation when broken down means that a person should treat himself and others both as a means and an end, but mostly as an end in itself. It implies that a maxim should not simply serve to satisfy the needs of a minority while the majority suffers from the consequences of the maxim. The perfect harmony that would be created by observing perfect duty in ensuring that no one gets used as means is called the Kingdom of Ends. It is a hypothetical state of existence where only rational beings who judge themselves and their actions only live by maxims that are brought about by absolute necessity. The term Kingdom here denotes the perfect unity of rational beings. Maxims are ground rules or subjective principles of action that motivate people into action. For example, “What you do not wish to be done to yourself do not do to another” is a maxim. This maxim is not a universal law, as it only derived from the principle. However, if a person is not in a position to be beneficent of the act, which he does to others, he is not bound to this maxim. It would be meaningless to him, for it does not satisfy his needs. Take, for instance, a judge and a criminal. A judge has to sentence a criminal to jail; however if the criminal used this maxim to argue his case; that the judge should not sentence him as a judge would not like to be sentenced, then there would be no justice. These formulations make maxims empty. This is because maxims in themselves are not universal, impartial, or rational. They mostly apply to a set of circumstances, but they do not fully preserve the universality of humanity. Therefore, maxims are only applicable in certain situations that warrant their application, but in other situation, they would result in harmful consequences rather than good. Categorical imperative has only one problem; it is a rigid system. If you were in a position to save your mother’s life by only killing someone, it stipulates that killing that the person would be wrong. Practically, this theory falls apart in such situations. Morality cannot be limited to formulations. In the end, the action that leads to minimize negative consequences to a majority of people is the one that should be encouraged. Works cited Read More