Q&A: Morality Not According to the Categorical Imperative
Morality Not According to the Categorical Imperative
Question
Hello
I’ve been thinking for a long time about Kant’s categorical imperative and whether it really is the only criterion for a moral act.
I have 2 questions:
1. What is the reason that the categorical imperative is a criterion for a moral act? Is it because it seems to include a great many cases in which our intuition tells us that the act is moral?
2. Cases in which I do not want the act to become a general law, but it is still moral. For example—taking leadership or command over a group. In this case one person needs to do it, but a situation in which everyone takes command is not a desirable one. Another example is accepting different roles in society—for instance, choosing to be a doctor seems like a moral act, but not everyone can be a doctor, etc.
I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
Answer
To understand where the categorical imperative grows out of, you need to read Kant. He has an entire line of argument that leads to it.
But in practice, it is clear that the intuition that this is proper is enough for us, and at the same time it is clear that this is not sufficient and does not exhaust the criteria for morality. In my opinion, it only provides a conceptual direction that helps us think about these things.
In practice, even if you want to apply it, there is a great deal of ambiguity and several different possibilities. For example, in the leadership case you mentioned, I would want there to be a general law that whoever is most suitable should be the leader. So your principle does fit into the categorical imperative. The same can be said about the example Kant himself gives—the prohibition against lying in every case, because we would not want there to be a general law permitting lying. One can argue in the same way: I would want there to be a general law permitting lying in a time of distress.