Is this right or wrong, should I act this way or not; these are the kinds of questions we ask ourselves every day. But what is truly moral or immoral and who gets to decide, is it God or some deity, or do is it us who decides what is morally right or wrong. According to Immanuel Kant, ethical decision making is up to us and our ability to reason and is done through the categorical imperative. Here we will discuss what the categorical imperative is, how it defines ethics and how it differs from other philosophers’ theories on ethical decision making.
The Categorical imperative is a system used to determine whether an act is morally right or wrong. Under Immanuel Kant’s theory or Kantianism, the moral rule is something absolute, there are no exceptions, no matter who is performing the act or under what circumstances the actions is performed. In addition, under the categorical imperative, moral rule does not come from a deity or some external supernatural force. It is not to be determined by a religion, since there are numerous religions, and all abide by different definitions of what is morals.
Kant believes that a moral rule should come from logic and reason and should have consideration for others. It is not something that can be taught but must be developed through cognitive reason which can be found in all us human beings. An action’s good or bad, is determined by pure intention or as Kant calls it “good will”, if your intentions are good then nothing else in the action matters, not the act itself or the consequences. Good actions alone do not make someone a good person, the action is not good when we simply act out of obligation. For an act to be good, we must will it from a good place and not because it is what society expects from us or because we expect praises in return.
127 our experts are availableright now
Categorical imperative says that if you make an exception for yourself you must make it for everyone, Kant says ‘act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ (1). This would result in a universal law that would create an impractical society, for example if I made the decision to lie and thus willed lying into a universal law, then I would have created a society of liars, where no trust would exist. The second part of the categorical imperative is that no other human being should be used a mere means to an end. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” (1).
The purpose of objects is to be used as pure mere to end, since they serve no other purpose, but we as human beings have a purpose and to not acknowledge that humanity is to steal for them their abilities to decide for themselves. Last part of the categorical imperative is “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”. This last piece is all about autonomy, self-governing is required to complete the categorical imperative, one be having the capacity to decide for themselves what course of action to follow.
Unlike Kant who believes that ethics are independent of religion and are decided by logic and cognitive reason, Bonhoeffer believes that ethics are decided by God’s will. Human alone can to decide what is right or wrong through pure reason, only God possess the ability and capacity to do this. The answer to ethics can only be found by returning to Christ and living through by his word and commandments. Afterall, man’s desire should be to only please God, and the only way to do that is by living the way he has decided it.
If mankind were to take it upon themselves to decide, they are condemning themselves to failure, by taking a power beyond their abilities to handle. “Instead of knowing only the god who is good to him and instead of knowing all things in Him, [man] knows only himself as the origin of good and evil”. Although Bonhoeffer theories have merit, I don’t agree completely, if we were all created by God and he imparted on all of us the knowledge of good and evil after the fall of Adam and Eve, then wouldn’t we have the capacity to discern between what is moral and immoral.
Kant’s believes is essentially, treat others the way you want to be treated and have consideration for others as the human being they are.
