Q&A: The Categorical Imperative Versus Other Values
The Categorical Imperative Versus Other Values
Question
Suppose there is a moral problem that obligates me to limit myself because of the categorical imperative (and not in and of itself), but because of that limitation I won’t be able to fulfill another value.
Is the force of the obligation of the categorical imperative like that of the problem on which it is based?
For example, if I think that regarding coronavirus I need to limit myself more than the restrictions that exist now, but only by virtue of the categorical imperative, because otherwise the chance that I would infect someone is very small.
But on the other hand, because of that restriction I won’t be able to study properly (or do some other valuable act).
So if it were clear that I was infecting others, then obviously I would need to limit myself, but perhaps since the restriction comes only from the categorical imperative, I would not cancel my learning because of it?
Answer
I don’t know how to give formulas, but I’ve written more than once that the categorical imperative is not the last word. Nothing is the last word. There is common sense, and it should be used. When acting in accordance with the categorical imperative comes at a price, that price should be weighed seriously.
“If it were clear that I was infecting others, then obviously I would need to limit myself.”
Why is that obvious?
On the contrary, you should infect others in order to immunize them with an effective vaccine.