Kant’s Categorical
Imperative
Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk
© Michael Lacewing
Deontology
• Morality is a matter of duty.
• Whether something is right or wrong
doesn’t depend on its consequences.
Actions are right or wrong in
themselves.
• We each have duties regarding our own
actions.
Kant’s Categorical
Imperative
• Morality is meant to guide our actions.
• We act on maxims: principle of action,
what we intend.
• Morality is universal, the same for
everyone.
• so “Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will
that it should become a universal law”.
The two tests
• ‘contradiction in conception’: a maxim is
wrong if the situation in which everyone
acted on that maxim is somehow selfcontradictory.
• E.g. stealing: If we could all just help
ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea
of ‘owning’ things would disappear; but then
no one would be able to steal.
The two tests
• contradiction in will: It is logically
possible to universalize the maxim,
e.g. ‘not to help others in need’ (even
though it would be unpleasant). But we
can’t will this, because we might need
help, and to will an end is to will the
means.
Imperatives
• An imperative is just a command.
• A hypothetical imperative is a
command that presupposes some
further goal or end.
• A categorical imperative is not
hypothetical. It is irrational and
immoral not to obey it.
Happiness and reason
• Only reason and happiness motivate us.
Morality motivates us, so must be one
of these.
• It can’t be happiness, since what
makes people happy differs, and
happiness can be good or bad.
• It is reason: morality is universal and
categorical - so is reason.
Objections
• Any action can be justified, as long as
we phrase the maxim cleverly.
– But the test is what our maxim really is.
• Conflict of duties
– Duties never really conflict, but knowing
how to apply the CI requires judgment.
• Strange results: ‘I shall never sell, but
only buy’ is immoral!
Respecting humanity
• ‘Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in
the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an
end’
• To treat someone’s humanity simply as a
means, and not also as an end, is to treat
the person in a way that undermines their
power of making a rational choice
themselves.