In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant discusses the standards an action must meet in order to be morally acceptable. He does this through two main formulations in which he claims to be the categorical imperative (Topic 2). Kant made a clear distinction between the things we ought to do morally, and those in which we do not. The non-moral actions we practice are what Kant calls hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives command that you should do something in order to achieve your desires or are motivated to do so. For example, if I wanted to pass my exam, I would be motivated to study. But Kant did not view morality this way, instead he did so through what he called the categorical imperative. This imperative according to Kant, is derived from pure reason and applies to you regardless of your desires and aims (Ak. 414). Categorical imperatives offer a standard that must be met if it is to be morally acceptable. Kant claims that the moral law binds to you or is in other words inescapable, simply because you are a rational being. I personally find Kant’s claim to be plausible as it should be rather obvious to the rational being whether or not an action is morally right or wrong, simply through using our ability to reason.
Moreover, in order to figure out what is moral, we must understand the two main formulas Kant has derived from the categorical imperative. These are known as: the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity. The formula of universal law states that we are to only act on a maxim if it is in our power to will that everyone adopts this maxim (Ak. 421). It is important to note that maxims are a type of action you would perform under particular circumstances. They are not just a description of what you do, but why and when you do it as they represent your true reason for performing an action. While Kant’s claim can be rather confusing, to gain a better understanding of the formula, let us use the maxim of stealing in order to obtain something I want. According to Kant, I must now imagine snapping my fingers so that everyone adopts this policy. Therefore, if it is okay for me to steal, it is okay for everyone to steal. Personally, I would not like to live in a world where everyone steals, but frankly, that is irrelevant. What I must ask myself is if I would somehow contradict myself by causing stealing to be a universally adopted principle. Kant claims that I would in fact be contradicting myself as if I was stealing from others, and they were stealing from me, then I stole it back, it would simply just be a continuous cycle of stealing from each other. Therefore, this fails to be a categorical imperative as it is morally unacceptable for Kant.
Furthermore, the other formulation of the categorical imperative is what Kant calls the formula of humanity. This formula explains how we should treat other people. According to Kant’s groundwork, we should always treat humanity as an end and never as something to our own benefit (Ak. 429). In other words, rational beings exist for themselves and it is unacceptable to use them to our discretion. For example, I ask you if I can borrow some money to pay for my philosophy textbook. But instead, I actually go to the mall and treat myself to a nice little shopping spree. I must then ask myself if my maxim reflects the idea that humanity is an end in itself. Kant would say this is morally unacceptable as I am lying to you and simply only using you for your money. Thus, I am treating you as a mere means rather than an end, so this maxim must be abandoned. By ends, Kant is referring to us as rational beings. He says that we are ends-in-ourselves as we are free and have the ability to set our own goals (Ak. 431). Kant makes a clear distinction between what is instrumental and what is intrinsically valued. What can be replaced by something of equal value is what Kant calls price. In contrast, he claims that we as rational beings hold intrinsic value as we are irreplaceable. Kant’s formula of humanity gives us a greater understanding of his categorical imperative and therefore explains how our rational nature is the source of everything else’s value in the universe.
Within Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative, he claims there are two different ways in which actions can fail under each. Kant says maxims can fail under each formula due to two different contradictions: contradiction in conception and contradiction in the will. Contradictions in conception are where an action cannot without contradiction even be thought of as being universally accepted (Ak. 425). Kant claims contradictions in conception to be associated with what he calls perfect or narrow duties. An example of this would be arson. It is extremely strict, and could under no exceptions ever be violated. Whereas, contradictions in the will are when an action is unable without contradiction to be willed as a universal law (Ak. 424). In other words, these types of contradictions occur when something interferes with my goals or desires. Kant believes this type of contradiction is associated with imperfect or wide duties. For example, choosing to help others. Something like this is open-ended and left to my own discretion when exactly to satisfy it. Kant’s purpose for these two contradictions is to show how actions fail under each formula because they are morally unacceptable.
As discussed above, failing the categorical imperative test should be a sign of an action which is morally wrong or unacceptable. When looking at the formula of the universal law, this is evident because if the maxim that is universally adopted is contradicted in any way, it should be clear that the action itself is unjust. As rational beings, Kant believes that we are able to use our judgment and ability to reason and help us decipher what is right from wrong. Regardless of our desires or goals, the moral law binds to each and every one of us and is therefore inescapable. Furthermore, when the formula of humanity fails the categorical imperative test, it is also clear that an action is morally unacceptable. As Kant sees it, if we treat others as a ‘mere means’ or rather to benefit our own desires and goals, we are not considering others as ends-in-themselves. Kant claims that if I use someone for my own selfish reasons, without any thought whatsoever about their own goals, I am violating the categorical imperative and not even valuing them as a rational being for that matter. Therefore, by failing the the categorical imperative test in each formula, it should be evident to us as rational beings that a maxim or action is morally wrong.
Lastly, Kant’s formula of universal law explains that we can only do something if it is in our power to will that action to become universally adopted. I believe Kant’s formula is rather vague and too general. What Kant fails to do is recognize that not everyone may agree on what is actually morally right or wrong. I believe Kant’s formula is rather impractical when it comes down to making moral decisions as he fails to consider factors such as family, race and societal factors when trying to decide what is morally acceptable. Although he claims that as rational beings we are able to decipher right from wrong, while you may believe an action to be acceptable, I may view it as unacceptable. Moreover, his formula of humanity discusses how we should always treat rational nature as an end and never as something to our own discretion or benefit. In Kant’s example of suicide, he claims that we are treating ourselves as a mere means rather than an end. Through the formula of humanity, Kant explains that we must treat the existence of rational beings as ends. Thus, no one should commit suicide. But, if the happiness of a rational being is an end or intrinsically valued in itself, then we cannot say that by committing suicide we are treating a rational being as a means. Although Kant claims we must treat rational nature as an end, he fails to consider that sometimes the happiness of a rational being is an end in itself. While I find much of Kant’s claims to be plausible, his formulations of the categorical imperative has raised many questions that leave me pondering in great thought.
...(download the rest of the essay above)