Q&A: The Categorical Imperative
The Categorical Imperative
Question
Regarding the categorical imperative:
It is well known that the Kantian imperative is a form of moral realism and not consequentialism. But when I ask myself whether I would want there to be a rule that everyone steals, and I answer no—why do I answer no? Because I am a human being, and I understand what a world in which everyone steals would look like, and that is a world in which it is harder and more dangerous to live. (A consequence.) So I reached the conclusion that I would not want there to be a rule permitting stealing only after passing it through a consequentialist filter.
I would be glad if you could explain whether I understood correctly or not, and if so, where the flaw is. Thanks.
Answer
There is no connection at all between Kant and realism. Realism is not the opposite of consequentialism. I have written several times about the difference between Kant’s categorical imperative and consequentialism. For example, in Column 122. Kant is not talking about a result but about a hypothetical test that examines a hypothetical world. See there.
Discussion on Answer
Continued: according to a hired murderer who admits that murder is immoral but whose impulse (the money) overcame him, I certainly can condemn it even according to his own view, so why do I need God in order to condemn an immoral act? I understood from you (lessons 32, 33 in the Faith series on YouTube) that one cannot condemn without God, and I didn’t fully understand your point.
I claim that the hypothetical test in the hypothetical world is in fact connected to the result. That’s how things work, in my view: in a world where people steal, life is not good, it is dangerous, you have to spend a lot of money on guarding and security, and therefore from that result I understand that I would not want a general rule forbidding stealing. In what other way can one understand that I would want there to be a general rule forbidding stealing?
Another question about morality: someone claims that murder is immoral. Then I ask him: why am I obligated to be moral? And he says: you are not obligated to do anything, but it is immoral—and he does indeed condemn someone who murders. From here it follows that there is morality (not valid and not binding), but there is morality, and from here it follows that there is non-valid and non-binding morality without God. My understanding is that you reject this. Why?