Q&A: What Did Kant Think Makes the Categorical Imperative Binding?
What Did Kant Think Makes the Categorical Imperative Binding?
Question
Hi Michi, hello Rabbi.\nDid Kant mean by the “categorical imperative” that it is actually binding, or only to define the category of moral prohibitions regardless of the source of moral obligation?\nIf option A is correct, why should the categorical imperative obligate me? Is Kant a prophet?\nThanks.
Answer
Excellent question. I discussed this at length in the fourth talk, part 3. There I explained the contradiction in Kant’s doctrine between his statements about the categorical imperative, which are always understood as the basis for humanistic (= human) morality, and his argument for the existence of God as the basis for morality. I explained that the categorical imperative has no validity unless there is a source that gives it validity. His analysis assumes that there is moral obligation and only discusses what its definition is, and that is how he arrives at the categorical imperative. But what is the basis for the assumption that such an obligation exists? That does not appear there. It is a transcendental concept.
Discussion on Answer
If it has no legislator, then it isn’t binding. Most people, for some reason, think that it is binding, which forces the existence of a transcendental source.
And how do we know that a transcendental source legislated morality? Maybe it really has no legislator.