what is the best test to evaluate if an act is ethical
Affiliate 2: Upstanding Traditions
Section 11. The Categorical Imperative
| The Categorical Imperative |  | An Ethics of Duty |
(Note: You must read but those linked materials that are preceded past the capitalized word READ.)
The Chiselled Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral deportment and to make moral judgments. It is not a command to perform specific deportment -- it does not say, "follow the x commandments", or "respect your elders". Information technology is essentially "empty" -- information technology is merely formal process by which to evaluate any action about which might exist morally relevant.
Since by nature (according to Kant) the moral law is universal and impartial and rational, the chiselled is a way of formulating the criteria by which whatsoever activity can laissez passer the test of universality, impartiality, and rationality. That is its just role .
Information technology has several forms or expressions and you lot need to know the first 2 . Kant believes that these two forms of the CI are, ultimately, equivalent, and that what one forbids the other forbids besides. I suppose you might say that they are two ways of looking at the aforementioned "moral reality." How are these two forms related? How are they equivalent? Well, they are equivalent because that which makes human beings intrinsically valuable (this is the focus of the 2nd expression of the CI) is reason and liberty, and information technology is precisely the demands of rationality (which is the precondition of freedom) that provide the criteria for evaluating moral deportment in the first expression of the CI. In other words, it is because other people take (universal) reason and freedom that you should never treat them as merely ways to your own ends, and it is that rationality which provides the criterion for evaluation found in the first expression of the CI.
Both forms of the CI are intended to be expressions of the common, ordinary moral sense that we (most of us, anyway) have that in that location are some deportment that are simply wrong.
What is the human relationship between the two forms of the Chiselled Imperative?
An imperative is a command. "Close the door!" "Brush your teeth!" "Report difficult!" "Don't forget to push button your shirt." According to Kant, however, these commands are abbreviations.
- "Close the door, so that your begetter tin hear the game."
- "Brush your teeth, and so you don't get cavities."
- "Study hard, so you can get a skillful job, and give your poor parents some peace."
- "Don't forget to button your shirt, and so your date doesn't think you're an idiot."
They are "hypothetical imperatives" -- Kant means that the commands depend upon the goals to be fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend upon personal situations, item human goals and desires and dispositions. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that apply only in particular circumstances, for particular people who happen to accept these desires, these goals.
The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal considering all people, in virtue of being rational, would human action in precisely the aforementioned way, and impartial because their actions are not guided past their ain biases, simply because they respect the dignity and autonomy of every homo being and do not put their own personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.
Discover that the above is NOT a description of how everybody does carry -- as an ethical theory, information technology is concerned to describe how people ought to carry.
Kant is not condemning hypothetical imperatives. In fact, he agrees that these are the sorts of imperatives that we live by are hypothetical in nature. But they are not moral. (They are not immoral -- they are not-moral.)
What is the function of reason?
Reason has a lot of functions. It has a theoretical function (scientific discipline, for instance) and a practical part. We are interested in the practical function -- practical in the sense that reason determines (along with emotions and desires) human behavior and choice. But the practical part tin can be understood to have ii parts -- as a "means-ends" function, and equally the moral function. Kant, equally it should be clear to you by now, does non equate moral reason with the calculative reason of the utilitarians or the egoists. Merely he does not condemn this side of practical reason, either. Information technology has its proper place in human life, and it is an exceedingly important identify. Only calculation of means and ends must be supported with a different blazon of reasoning -- moral reasoning.
And how does this side of homo reasoning work? What is it's nature?
Human reason is principally constituted past the search for universality and necessity. This conception of reason shows Kant to exist deeply and profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment'south pursuit of natural scientific discipline. For Kant, this search for "natural laws" in science is the crucial aspect, the constitutive element of rationality per se. And only as the discovery of universal laws is absolutely central to natural science, then is the search for universal laws primal to human morality. Information technology is this aspect of reason which is at the centre of the demand for impartiality and justice. When a Judge make his/her decision in applying the police force, we hope and trust that s/he is not driven past his or her feelings, or passions, or biases, or ambitions. No, we want the Judge to be rational -- to put aside those personal attachments which might influence his or her ability to ignore such things as the colour of your skin, or the shape of your trunk, or the spelling of your proper noun, or the patterns of your clothing, or the length of your hair. What matters is the law. What matters is the Judge's unbiased reason.
So it is in ideals equally it is in constabulary. The Categorical Imperative is devised by Kant to provide a formulation by which we tin can apply our human reason to decide the right, the rational affair to do -- that is our duty.
Kant�southward links
http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/semiau96/kantlink.html
For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the volition. Those acts are morally praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected, particularly the consequences to self. The only thing Skilful about the deed is the WILL, the Good Will. That will is to do our DUTY. What is our duty? It is our duty to deed in such a manner that we would want anybody else to human activity in a similar way in like circumstances towards all other people.
Kant expressed this every bit the Categorical Imperative.
Act according to the maxim that you lot would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal police force.
For Kant the Adept involves the Principle of Universalizability!
Kant argues that there tin be iv formulations of this principle:
The Formula of the Constabulary of Nature: "Act every bit if the saying of your action were to get through your will a universal law of nature."
The Formula of the Finish Itself: "Act in such a way that y'all always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of whatsoever other, never simply as a ways, simply ever at the same time as an stop."
The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal police force through its maxims."
The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a police-making member of a kingdom of ends."
Never care for a person as a ways to an end.
Persons are always ends in themselves. We must never use or exploit anyone for whatever purpose.
Video: Beginner's Guide to Kant'south Moral Philosophy
Kant in his Critique of Applied Reason wanted to find a ground for ethics that would be based on reason and non on a faith in a god or in some common cold adding of utility that might permit people to be used for the benefit of the majority. Kant idea carefully about what it is that all humans would find reasonable as a guide for human conduct. People think it incorrect to kill, prevarication, steal, and interruption promises. Why is this so. Kant arrives at the thought that humans think these acts wrong because they cannot will that others would do these things because it would mean the end of civilized life, perchance even the life of the player contemplating the right mode to behave. One can not will that people prevarication all the time for that would mean the stop to human communications if we could not trust what was said to be truthful most, if not all, of the time. Kant thought that at that place would be perfect and imperfect duties.
Perfect Duty is that which nosotros are all obliged to practice all of the time.
eastward.thou., no killing, no physically harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking promises
Imperfect Duties are those which we should do equally frequently as possible merely can non be expected to practice e'er. e.one thousand., exist charitable, loving,
Complete OVERVIEW of KANT and the Ideals of DUTY
Chiselled Imperative Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm
On Probabilities of Determining Maxims of Volition:
Moral Responsibleness in Applying the Categorical Imperative
by David R. Jenkins
http://home.earthlink.cyberspace/~dave_jenkins/kant/dj_ci.html
Glossary of Kant�due south terms
http://world wide web.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html
The Categorical Imperative is Not the Golden Rule
Kant�due south Deontology is presented in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason wanted to observe a footing for ideals that would be based on reason and not on a faith in a god or in some cold calculation of utility that might allow people to be used for the benefit of the bulk. Kant idea advisedly about what it is that all humans would find reasonable as a guide for human conduct. People remember it incorrect to kill, lie, steal, and break promises. Why is this so. Kant arrives at the thought that humans recollect these acts wrong because they cannot will that others would do these things because information technology would hateful the finish of civilized life, perhaps even the life of the role player contemplating the right way to acquit. One can non will that people lie all the time for that would hateful the end to human communications if we could not trust what was said to be true most, if not all, of the time.
Perfect Duty is that which nosotros are all obliged to do all of the time.
e.g., no killing, no physically harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking promises
Imperfect Duties are those which nosotros should practice equally oft equally possible but can non exist expected to do always. eastward.1000., be charitable, loving,
COMPLETE OVERVIEW of KANT and the Ideals of DUTY
READ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Moral_philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://world wide web.utm.edu/research/iep/k/kantmeta.htm#Kant'southward%20Ethics
http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm#H8
: http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
The Chiselled Imperative in the Twentieth Century
Categorical Imperative
Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03432a.htm
The Chiselled Imperative is NOT the Golden Rule
With the Gold dominion you are to: Act every bit you would have others act towards you.
The Golden Rule Effectually the Earth
The same essential golden dominion has been taught by all the major religions (and philosophies) of the world going back approximately 3500 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| HINDUISM (Vedic religion from c. 13th century BC) Practice not to others what ye do non wish done to yourself... --This is the whole Dharma, mind it well. The Mahabarata, cited in Das, 1955, p. 398. | ZOROASTRIANISM (c. 12th century BC) Human nature is good just when information technology does not do unto another whatever is non good for its own self. Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5; in Yard�ller, chapter 94, vol 18, 1882, p. 269. |
| BUDDHISM (c. 6th century BC) Hurt non others in ways that yous yourself would find hurtful. Udanavargu, 5:xviii, Tibetan Dhammapada, 1983. | JUDAISM (c. 10th? century BC) What is mean to you, practice not practise to your neighbor; that is the unabridged Torah; the rest is commentary; go acquire information technology. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a, every bit cited in Glatzer, 1969, p. 197. |
| JAINISM (c. 6th century BC) In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, regard all creatures as you would regard your own self. Yoga-Sastra, cited in Balderdash, 1969, p. 92. | CHRISTIANITY (c. 1st century AD) Practice unto others as you would have them practise unto y'all. Luke half dozen:xiii And so in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. |
| CONFUCIANISM (c. 6th century BC) Do not exercise to others what you do non want done to yourself. Confucius, Analects, fifteen:23, 6:28; Mahabharara, 5:1517, in Confucius, The Analects, 1992. | ISLAM (c. 7th century Advertising) No one of yous is a believer until yous want for another that which you desire for yourself. The Sunnah (from the Hadith), publ. 1975. |
| SIKHISM (c. 15th century Advertizement) Be not estranged from another for, in every centre, Pervades the Lord. Sri Guru Granth Sahib, in Singh (trans.) 1963, p. 250. | Gregory Ix to French bishops concerning the attitude of Christians towards the Jews: "Est autem Jud�is a Christianis exhibenda benignitas, quam Christianis in Paganismo existentibus cupimus exhiberi" (Christians must show towards Jews the same good will which nosotros desire to be shown to Christians in pagan lands) In a Brief dated 6 April, 1233 |
| BAH�'� (c. 19th century Advertising) Ascribe not to whatsoever soul that which thou wouldst not take ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This is my command unto thee, practise one thousand observe it. Bah�'u'll�h, The Hidden Words, Arabic 29 |
Why should willingness to be on the receiving finish of like action make it permissible? If masochists are willing to suffer others' sadism, would that make sadism right? More than mostly, can credence of beingness on the receiving end of like activity legitimate anything?
Kant's improvement on the gold rule, the Categorical Imperative:
Human activity as you would desire all other people to act towards all other people.
Act according to the maxim that y'all would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.
The difference is this. With the Gold rule a masochist or a sadist would exist justified in causing or receiving pain. This is not what the Kantian Principle would back up.
From Don Berkich:
" Some make the fault of thinking that the First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is but a badly worded version of the Biblical "Gilt Rule"--Do unto others as y'all would accept them do unto you. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The Golden Dominion, every bit Kant well knew, is a deeply misguided ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat salacious example.
| The Horny Martin Example | ||
| | | |
| | Suppose that Martin is twenty year-sometime college pupil. Suppose further that Martin has never been out on a date. The adult female of his dreams finally agrees to get out with him. Then Martin gets all dressed up and takes her out to a dainty dinner, after which they drive upward to Sentinel Point. And... | |
| | | Martin does unto others as he would have done unto himself, |
| | with disastrous consequences. | |
Because the same outcome cannot be obtained by awarding of the Categorical Imperative, it follows that the Gold Rule and the Categorical Imperative are not extensionally equivalent. "
The Chiselled Imperative is Not the Gilded Rule
Glossary of Kant�due south terms
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html
PROBLEMS WITH KANT�S THEORY
one. The theory applies only to rational agents. It would not apply to non-humans or to humans who are not rational, e.g., humans with brain malfunctioning, illness or persistent vegetative coma.
2. The theory cannot resolve conflicts between duties:
a. between two perfect duties
b. between a perfect duty and an imperfect duty
How would a person resolve a conflict between 2 perfect duties such every bit never tell a prevarication and avoid harming someone? What if telling the truth were to harm someone?
How would you resolve the conflict betwixt the perfect duty, say to go on a promise to selection your friend up with you auto at a certain time, and an imperfect duty, say to stop on the way to pick up your friend in order to requite CPR to someone, a stranger, and save that stranger�s life?
iii. A clever person could phrase the maxim to be universalized in such a fashion as to let almost anything. Past placing qualifiers on the maxim or peculiar definitions on terms a clever actor could satisfy the categorical imperative and however be acting in a manner otherwise not consequent with it.
What if someone were to hope to exist faithful to his mate and not have sexual practice with another adult female. And so that person engages in oral and anal forms of physical interaction leading to orgasm and however thinks that the promise was not broken because the meaning of �sex� did not include those forms of interaction.
Kant links http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/semiau96/kantlink.html
� Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/GoodnEvil/Readings/kantgw.pdf
� http://web.archive.org/web/20000306100558/http://world wide web.siu.edu/~philos/kinesthesia/Manfredi/intro/kantianism.html
� Kant at Faith.internet http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/ethics-Kant-A%20Christian%20View.htm
� The Ideals of Duty http://web.annal.org/web/20010605011422/http://ideals.acusd.edu/e2/ChapterSix.html
� What is the best manner to live? �Kant http://web.archive.org/web/19981207054759/http://web.mit.edu/wedgwood/world wide web/bwl-kant-ane.html
� What is the best fashion to live? Kant http://web.archive.org/web/19990129074144/http://web.mit.edu/wedgwood/www/bwl-kant-2.html
� A Critique of the Kantian Ethics http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/kant1.htm
� Critique of Kant http://spider web.archive.org/web/19990204011933/http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~src068/artikel.html/andreas.html
� Kant, Immanuel: The Critique of Practical Reason http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/critique-practical-reason.pdf
� Kant, Immanuel: The Critique of Pure Reason http://www2.hn.psu.edu/kinesthesia/jmanis/kant/critique-pure-reason6x9.pdf
� Kant, Immanuel: Fundamental Principles http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Metaphysic-Morals.pdf
There are other theories. We shall move on to examine them.
Proceed to the next section by clicking here> next section.
� Copyright Philip A. Pecorino 2002. All Rights reserved.
Web Surfer's Caveat: These are class notes, intended to comment on readings and amplify form discussion. They should be read every bit such. They are not intended for publication or general distribution.
Source: https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_2_Ethical_Traditions/Categorical_Imperative.htm