Q&A: The Categorical Imperative and Entering a Shelter
The Categorical Imperative and Entering a Shelter
Question
With God’s help
Many people argue that a person should enter a shelter on the basis of the categorical imperative, because if everyone did not do so, then certainly someone would be harmed.
And I want to discuss this from several angles: 1—Here, his decision will not affect others at all, nor will it create, because of it, a critical mass that causes damage
(unlike, say, stealing from the state). Is the answer to this that for Kant the imperative is not consequentialist, but rather deontological?
2—Seemingly there is no harm here to others (except at most to something called the “public,” in that one of them will die). Does the imperative apply here? Or perhaps yes, because
in the end he is harming himself—but is that considered a value-based decision?
Thank you very much!
Answer
I don’t know who all these “many people” are. I wrote this here on the site, and someone also posted here a video of Rabbi Asher Weiss saying exactly these things. See there for implications regarding a prohibition involved in entering a safe room.
I’ve explained more than once (Column 13, 122) that the categorical imperative is by definition not consequentialist. If there are consequences, you don’t need a categorical imperative. That answers both of your questions.
Discussion on Answer
In my article on the categorical imperative, I addressed this mistake. The categorical imperative defines an act as moral or immoral. Therefore, there is no meaning to an a priori classification of acts as belonging to the moral domain or lying outside it.
Have a good week!
Is the question of whether to go to a shelter connected to the categorical imperative? The imperative only says that if there is a moral act, then its validity should be derived not from its result, but from the fact that it is value-based. But here, entering a shelter itself—inasmuch as it is not defined as an act of rescue (since we are discussing the side where there is not much personal chance of death)—is not inherently a moral act, and if so, seemingly the imperative does not apply to it (and that would also undermine the claim that the categorical imperative led to Nazism; and according to what I’m saying now, there is no connection, because all of Kant’s discussion is only after there is already definitely an essence of good)?
Thank you very much!