Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 12:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kant's Categorical Imperatives
#1
Kant's Categorical Imperatives
My question regards Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperatives." I haven't gotten around to reading Kant though he's definitely on my list of future endeavors, so my knowledge of him is limited to other's commentaries and a few Google searches. A few days ago I got into an unproductive argument with an apparently devout follower of Kant whose position it was, like Kant's, that if a murderer were to arrive at your doorstep seeking to slaughter your friend, whom you were harboring, it would be your duty NOT to lie to the murderer, even if the consequence was that your friend would end up getting massacred. I found this, well let's just say, INSANE! I didn't believe at first that that couldn't have actually been what Kant meant. But it appears that it was indeed an early objection to his moral philosophy and Kant never really came to see the problem with it. I'm coming to the issue from the position of, well let's call it "urbane consequentialism." What are your views on Kant in this example? From what I've read of Kant's contributions to the notions of "unalienable" "human rights" and "equality," I think he was on the right track in many ways...but failed to allow that every rule has an exception or two, even imperatives. The example of the murderer must be one of them. It must also be asked, how does a Kantian establish what is a "Categorical Imperative"? What about in the case of suicide?
Reply
#2
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
Even great minds can make mistakes in the way they think.
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter
Reply
#3
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What are your views on Kant in this example?
The categorical imperative briefly seems like a good idea until you realize, as you said, that every rule has exceptions.
(May 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: It must also be asked, how does a Kantian establish what is a "Categorical Imperative"? What about in the case of suicide?

Wikipedia Wrote:Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone dependent on them having certain ends to the meaning:

if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;
if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
Essentially, it is a categorical imperative if you can reasonably state that all people should follow it at all times. If you think about it, there shouldn't ever be any problems with having to make an exception to a categorical imperative because they are by definition without exception...and hence non-existent. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about suicide, but if we could hardly want everyone to kill themselves, so that would be against the categorical imperative.
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
Reply
#4
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
I categorically deny categorical imperatives.

Ethical and moral behavior is, of necessity, somewhat fluid. Taking life is generally wrong, but we're all relieved when the STG take down a man who has killed two of his eight year old hostages and threatens to kill the rest.

In his extolling of categorical imperatives, Kant seems to have missed a few points, primarily the Greater Good. While we cannot possibly foresee all consequences to a given action, it would be morally repugnant to us to allow the hostage taker mentioned above to kill the remaining 20 children in his power, on the grounds that some of them might grow up to be thoroughly evil people. Without being omniscient, the best we can possibly do is to perform the greatest good for the greatest number.

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#5
Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 10, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Kitanetos Wrote: Even great minds can make mistakes in the way they think.

And this is widely regarded as one of Kant's biggest philosophical failings.
Reply
#6
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: My question regards Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperatives." I haven't gotten around to reading Kant though he's definitely on my list of future endeavors, so my knowledge of him is limited to other's commentaries and a few Google searches. A few days ago I got into an unproductive argument with an apparently devout follower of Kant whose position it was, like Kant's, that if a murderer were to arrive at your doorstep seeking to slaughter your friend, whom you were harboring, it would be your duty NOT to lie to the murderer, even if the consequence was that your friend would end up getting massacred. I found this, well let's just say, INSANE! I didn't believe at first that that couldn't have actually been what Kant meant. But it appears that it was indeed an early objection to his moral philosophy and Kant never really came to see the problem with it. I'm coming to the issue from the position of, well let's call it "urbane consequentialism." What are your views on Kant in this example? From what I've read of Kant's contributions to the notions of "unalienable" "human rights" and "equality," I think he was on the right track in many ways...but failed to allow that every rule has an exception or two, even imperatives. The example of the murderer must be one of them. It must also be asked, how does a Kantian establish what is a "Categorical Imperative"? What about in the case of suicide?

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.


(May 11, 2014 at 1:47 am)Darkstar Wrote: The categorical imperative briefly seems like a good idea until you realize, as you said, that every rule has exceptions.

I think that for Kant, that's the reason the world is fallen, because we aren't consistent with our morality. Of course, that makes his ethics largely useless as a useful moral system to apply in the real world.

Quote:Essentially, it is a categorical imperative if you can reasonably state that all people should follow it at all times. If you think about it, there shouldn't ever be any problems with having to make an exception to a categorical imperative because they are by definition without exception...and hence non-existent. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking about suicide, but if we could hardly want everyone to kill themselves, so that would be against the categorical imperative.

And if everyone killed themselves, there would no longer be any possibility of morality and no one could kill themselves any longer. xD

(May 11, 2014 at 6:27 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I categorically deny categorical imperatives.

Ethical and moral behavior is, of necessity, somewhat fluid. Taking life is generally wrong, but we're all relieved when the STG take down a man who has killed two of his eight year old hostages and threatens to kill the rest.

In his extolling of categorical imperatives, Kant seems to have missed a few points, primarily the Greater Good. While we cannot possibly foresee all consequences to a given action, it would be morally repugnant to us to allow the hostage taker mentioned above to kill the remaining 20 children in his power, on the grounds that some of them might grow up to be thoroughly evil people. Without being omniscient, the best we can possibly do is to perform the greatest good for the greatest number.

Boru

This misses that Kant was not a consequentialist, nor did he think one can be held responsible for the freely chosen actions of another rational agent. And the epistemic problem with being unable to see the real consequences of our actions is what further makes Kant see consequentialism and the "Greater Good" as a non-starter. But I like consequentialism, so I needn't say more. xD
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
Reply
#7
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 13, 2014 at 11:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: 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!"
Reply
#8
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 14, 2014 at 8:06 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 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?

Harris is just flatly wrong. Kant's deontological moral theory isn't consequentialistic at all. The basis for the Categorical Imperative mattering is in terms of it providing a consistent ethical axiom. The futility of that question is like asking a consequentialist (like myself) "why should the consequences of an action matter ethically?" It's a moral axiom, but it is not one that forms the basis of any strictly deontological moral theory.

Quote: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!"

But again, Kant has this covered. If everyone committed suicide, then there wouldn't be anyone left to commit suicide, which vitiates any morality since it eliminates all moral agents. It's a sort of reductio ad absurdum of objections like that.
The world is "better off" because morality is actually possible in a world with moral agents, making it "better" by definition.

Yes but for Kant, the mere fact that we would want for there to be an exception to the rule is not enough for it to override the CI. After all, we want to do all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
Reply
#9
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
(May 14, 2014 at 10:53 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Harris is just flatly wrong. Kant's deontological moral theory isn't consequentialistic at all. The basis for the Categorical Imperative mattering is in terms of it providing a consistent ethical axiom. The futility of that question is like asking a consequentialist (like myself) "why should the consequences of an action matter ethically?" It's a moral axiom, but it is not one that forms the basis of any strictly deontological moral theory.
You're not the first I've read who says Harris grossly misstates Kant's view, so until I get around to reading Kant myself I'll take your word for it. But in the meantime, I still don't understand how consistency is arrived at as the end-all-be-all measurement for absolute moral statements, especially considering that we wouldn't actually consider an honest person inconsistent with his values if he lies to save a potential murder victim. We'd view that person as more noble, for putting themselves at risk. Different sets of situations cannot be adequately judged by a generalized principle such as "Lying is always wrong." I think an argument could be made that the world wouldn't be better off if everyone thought that way.

Quote:But again, Kant has this covered. If everyone committed suicide, then there wouldn't be anyone left to commit suicide, which vitiates any morality since it eliminates all moral agents. It's a sort of reductio ad absurdum of objections like that.
The world is "better off" because morality is actually possible in a world with moral agents, making it "better" by definition.
"Better" by definition, divorced from any correlate to actually experienced reality (since we don't experience being dead or non-existent before infancy), sounds awfully superfluous and question-begging. Why not just cut to the chase and describe Kant's moral philosophy as "true" by definition if that's what it ultimately boils down to? I think that's where consequentialism succeeds in restricting the possibility for ostensibly arbitrary claims made under the guise of moral ingenuity. Unless it pertains to the actual experiences of feeling subjects, it's not a moral question, at least not immediately so (e.g. perhaps the object of our behavior is not a feeling subject but the effects said behavior has on the feeling subjects committing said behavior can be linked to a diminished sense of their actual or perceived overall well-being in some way). Hence, the ultimate standard is ourselves as individuals in a larger collective.

Quote:Yes but for Kant, the mere fact that we would want for there to be an exception to the rule is not enough for it to override the CI. After all, we want to do all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean we should allow ourselves to.
If all available reasons to us are exhausted and the only rational conclusion is that our pleasure is attained and no one else's is diminished, or perhaps even theirs is also positively effected, then I would disagree with that last statement.
Reply
#10
RE: Kant's Categorical Imperatives
Lying used to be considered an absolute evil.

Traditional morality considered that there were objective evils, things that when done or done for a particular purpose were always wrong. Therefore a person was not morally permitted to do such a thing.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Official Thread to Discuss the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant Mudhammam 6 1418 August 12, 2014 at 6:06 pm
Last Post: Mudhammam
  Why is Kant's practical reason for God wrong? filambee 23 6991 October 29, 2013 at 1:27 am
Last Post: filambee



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)