Categorical Imperative
The idea that something is only moral if you would be fine with it being a universal.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant
i.e. You don’t have any money and approach a friend for help. He agrees to give you a loan if you repay it in a week. You know you can’t repay it in a week, but consider lying in order to get the loan.
Kant says that you should imagine a world where everyone lies in order to receive loans. Everyone in this world would not trust each other enough to loan money. So, lying to receive money is morally bad.
Another part is that consequences do not matter in determining morality, only intentions.
Two drunk drivers go home one night. One hits and kills a person, while the other doesn’t. Both are still wrong to do so, even though one didn’t hit and kill anyone.
If you donate food to a charity in order to help orphans, it doesn’t matter if they all later die of poisoning because the food was bad. Your intentions were good, so you are morally correct.
This is the most important idea because it changed the way philosophers thought about morality. Before, everyone was much more utilitarian, saying murder is wrong because it doesn’t help the greater good. Kant argued it was flawed, since it didn’t address people who did things to maximise their own personal gain.
Opinion
I’m in agreement with Kant about morality. If everyone followed Kantian ethics, then the world would be a better place. Kant doesn’t believe that you act in order to create happiness. You act out of a universal duty. It is wrong to exploit the few for the benefit of the many. I also liked that his morality is based off a logical system, which by definition doesn’t allow for any conditions. Its either Universal or its not.
No comments:
Post a Comment