Kant's Categorical Imperatives

[Mudhammam]

Well, your objection to Kant that, in the axe murderer example, it ignores the consequences of telling the truth, we must get something clear. Kant held to and was defending a deontological ethical system. Deontology isn't about consequences, but about fulfilling duties. For Kant and his moral system, it was a non sequitur to say that telling the axe maniac the truth ignores the consequences misses what Kant believes defeats such objections: That you cannot be held accountable for the choices others make. Your obligation is to be moral, which in this moral framework means telling the truth.

As for how he establishes what is categorically imperative, think about the term "universilization". Basically, Kant's argument was (if I recall correctly) that they were things that you would want everyone in all comparable situations that doesn't reduce to absurdity. Or as Kant put it, "Do that which you would will become a universal law."

So for example, why shouldn't we steal things? Well, if everyone always stole things at all times, then the very concept of ownership no longer makes any sense, and thus "stealing" is a concept that no longer makes sense, because it's no longer even possible since no one owns anything.

So basically, if a morally-relevant action is something you would want everyone to do, it's a categorical imperative.

I think Sam Harris made a good point, however, that when you pull the mask of "deontological ethics" off Kant's Categorical Imperatives, you actually have the face of consequantialism. Otherwise, on what basis do we have for determining that the maxim of a Universal Law matters one way or another at all? Especially take my example of suicide. If I thought life was so meaningless that I wanted to kill myself, why would I value that everyone else lived? Who can make the moral judgement that the world is better off with humans? Sure, to us, but maybe not the suicidal mind. What makes the maxim that "Do that which you would will become a universal law" apply to all instances of lying rather than a more narrowly defined definition that excludes instances where every sane person would want the universal law to allow for some degree of deception. As one critic is said to have put it, "if you're getting pursued by an ax murderer, don't go to Kant's house!"