The categorical imperative

שו”ת › Category: moral › The categorical imperative

asked 7 years ago

peace.
I had difficulty understanding Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’.
Let’s say I’m faced with the question of whether to hide ten shekels of tax money for a poor person.
According to the ‘categorical order’ I will not steal, since I would not want everyone to steal under general law. But on the other hand, I would want anyone who is faced with the situation of embezzling money that is insignificant to a poor person to do so. So what exactly was the benefit of the categorical order?

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 7 years ago

This is one of the common difficulties with the categorical imperative. Kant, for example, forbade lying in any case, even to save a life. The reasoning is that we would not want people to lie. But this is not necessarily true, since we would want people to lie to save a life (the general rule, for example: one must never lie except when necessary to save a life). It is always a question of how to generalize the law so that it is general. There are many forms of generalization. But it is still not correct to conclude from this that the categorical imperative is worthless. Kant’s thinking is correct as a conceptual framework for morality. This framework must be filled with common sense and moral intuitions, all of which operate within this framework (they will determine what is a reasonable generalization and what is not). I think that one of the aspects in which the categorical imperative is strongest is the series of difficulties that I presented in the fourth notebook of the GHQ (tax evasion, voting in elections). There we see six acts that have no direct practical consequence and yet it is clear to everyone that they are forbidden to be done. The only explanation for this is the categorical imperative, see there.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

יהושע replied 7 years ago

So I was left with a dilemma. How can I decide according to the ‘command’ in this concrete situation like tax evasion? There is no escape from unformulated moral intuition, and the ‘categorical command’ is eliminated. I did not notice what it contributed to me. I also did not see how the examples in the notebook helped here (there too, one could say that I was interested in a general law that no one would evade taxes or murder except in this specific case, etc.)

יהושע replied 7 years ago

I do agree that moral motivation is indeed the core of morality. And consequential considerations are not the moral consideration. And yet the ‘command’ seems to me to be quite empty of concrete meanings

מיכי Staff replied 7 years ago

I explained why the order is significant. Your questions point to what I called “analyticity”, that is, the perception that if there is no logical mathematical decision, there is no decision at all. There is common sense and it operates within the categorical order (what is a general law). The examples in the notebook (tax evasion and voting in elections) cannot be understood without the categorical order. If you intend to establish a general law in which everyone must vote except me, it is not a general law but in a formal-analytical sense. If this is your approach, no law exists and is of any use.