The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
"[3] The categorical imperative, on the other hand, commands immediately the maxims one conceives which match its categorical requirements, denoting an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself, possessing intrinsic value beyond simply being desirable.
Kant expressed his strong dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, believing that it could never surpass the merely conditional command of hypothetical imperatives: a utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing the positive outcome for themselves.
Such judgments must be reached a priori, using pure practical reason independently of the influence of felt motives, or inclinations.
This distinction, that it is imperative that each action is not empirically determined by observable experience, has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality.
As a part of the world of sense, he would necessarily fall under the natural law of desires and inclinations.
Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will.
[7] This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, sometimes called the principle of universalizability: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
[8] According to Kant's reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them.
Most ends are of a subjective kind, because they need only be pursued if they are in line with some particular hypothetical imperative that a person may choose to adopt.
[11] Thus the third practical principle follows [from the first two] as the ultimate condition of their harmony with practical reason: the idea of the will of every rational being as a universally legislating will.Kant claims that the first formulation lays out the objective conditions on the categorical imperative: that it be universal in form and thus capable of becoming a law of nature.
[16] There is, however, another formulation that has received additional attention as it appears to introduce a social dimension into Kant's thought.
[citation needed] Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance.
In Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back.
This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back.
Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty as interpreted through the second formulation.
Because the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty.
But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction.
Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.How the Categorical Imperative would apply to suicide from other motivations is unclear.
Kant also applies the categorical imperative in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals on the subject of "failing to cultivate one's talents."
[20] Pope Francis, in his 2015 encyclical, applies the first formulation of the universalizability principle to the issue of consumption:[21]Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.
... To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.
It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.One form of the categorical imperative is superrationality.
Rather, the categorical imperative is an attempt to identify a purely formal and necessarily universally binding rule on all rational agents.
Claiming that Ken Binmore thought so as well, Peter Corning suggests that:[30]Kant's objection to the Golden Rule is especially suspect because the categorical imperative (CI) sounds a lot like a paraphrase, or perhaps a close cousin, of the same fundamental idea.
Calling it a universal law does not materially improve on the basic concept.One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the French philosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey.
Kant denied that such an inference indicates any weakness in his premises: not lying to the murderer is required because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences.
Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy expresses doubt concerning the absence of egoism in the categorical imperative.
However, Schopenhauer's criticism (as cited here) presents a weak case for linking egoism to Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative.
The deontological system is for Kant argued to be based in a synthetic a priori – since in restricting the will's motive at its root to a purely moral schema consistent its maxims can be held up to the pure moral law as a structure of cognition and therefore the alteration of action accompanying a cultured person to a 'reverence for the law' or 'moral feeling'.