Kant's Categorical Imperative

Radrook

Banned
R
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,834
How useful is this Categorical Imperative?
Is it a practical method in helping us reach conclusions?
Or is human susceptibility to egotism too strong for its routine application? If so, from a scale of one to 10 how high would you rate its practicality?



Here is a good site providing useful links on philosophy.
http://www.varietygalore.com/page/page/1041678.htm
 
The most basic criticism goes a bit like this:

Bob firmly "believes" and practices the Catergorical Imperative. Bob does not lie to people, because he would not want to live in a world where lying is morally acceptable.

One day, while on his daily jog, Bob sees a stranger running by, Bob doesnt have the time to stop and greet the stranger as he looked to be quite in a hurry. Bob continues along, jogging ever-so-delightfully, until a few minutes later Bob comes across another stranger, who's name we learn to be Bill.

Bill says to Bob "I'm a serial killer, and the prey I was about to kill got away, I know he ran by this way, but I dont know where he's hidden. Can you point me where I need to go to find him?"

Now, Bob doesnt believe its morally acceptable to point serial killers in the direction of their prey... but he is also firmly stringent in telling the truth. So naturally, Bob should answer with neither the truth, nor lie, he should answer "No comment". But, is it really that simple? The answer "no comment" probably breaks the Categorical Imperative anyway since one cannot will all people respond to questions in that way?

What's poor Bob to do?!

The above example is a comical spin on a very real critique by Philosopher Benjamin Constant. Kant responded to this critique in his essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives. Kant did in fact argue that it was a person's moral duty to be truthful to the murderer, but of course this opposes the idea that Kant's moral theory is the one people use intuitively.

Also, in the sense that a world of universal truthfulfulness can be just as efficient as a world of universal dishonesty via the word "not" in front of all statements (i.e. "I will go to school today" and "I will not go to school today" yield identical results in the two opposing worlds), and the fact it is difficul to prove what is a moral maxim, and what is merely a prudential maxim removes from the Imperative's practicality. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'll give the practicality about a... 3.
 
Yahweh

In the example you made, the Categorical Imperative would cause Bob to lie to the serial killer, because he cannot want to make "help serial killers find their victims" an universal law.
 
In the example you made, the Categorical Imperative would cause Bob to lie to the serial killer, because he cannot want to make "help serial killers find their victims" an universal law.

But according to Kant's imperative, neither can he want to live in a world where lying is morally acceptable. Kants prescription doesn't work unless you modify moral rules to become generalizations rather than categorical propositions. For example, we could take it as a general rule that lying is morally wrong, provided that no overriding factors are present, such as crazed serial killers.
 
Rather than tell lies, I prefer to blast them with both barrels, then there can be no mistake about who's saying what to whom. If something is morally reprehensible, why not say so? At least in that sense you can't go around being accused of being dishonest. But then again, I may try avoiding the situation altogether if I didn't think any good could come out of it. ;)
 
I dig Kant, but I think the C.I. is nonsense. It seems to suppose that morality is objective. It's too loosely worded too. Lying to a killer could also be phrased "protect a human life".
I'm kind of on board with DeSade here. In Dialog Between a Priest and a Dying Man (I think) he goes on about how incest, patricide, infanticide, etc. were all considered virtues by different groups at different times. Take a peek at The Golden Bough for many examples.
Oh yeah, I don't agree with the conclusions DeSade reaches based on his relativism and nihilism. Raping children is wrong, because I say it is.
 
Yahweh, I'm not familiar with Kant or his Categorical Imperative, but it seems that "do not lie" seems to be the crux to your story.

Now: how has Bob erred? Bob hasn't lied, AND the CI has not commanded him to 'tell the truth'... only to not lie.

By saying 'no comment', or saying nothing all all, he has not lied, and thus sticks to the CI.


"I had just been dismissed from University after delivering a brilliant lecture on the aggressive influence of German philosophy on rock and roll, entitled "You Kant always get what you want."
- Hedwig
 
Radrook said:
If so, from a scale of one to 10 how high would you rate its practicality?
[/B]
Click to expand...

Well, before I answer this question tell me what the cuttoff point is?

Do you follow any proposition with a higher practicality than a 7 for example? Are things lower than 3 not worth getting out of bed for?

The fact that people are'nt good at maths dosen't stop them from trying to learn calculus of utility. :)

On a serious note, I think the imperative is quite practical. My own position is somewhat admiring the practical advantages of a system like utilitanarianism but I can't think of a reasonable way to avoid the [B}summons[/B] of the categorical imperative.

Yahweh : The answer "no comment" probably breaks the Categorical Imperative anyway since one cannot will all people respond to questions in that way?

I don't see what the problem would be with establishing a universal of people not answering questions they don't want too. In fact I think that already exists to some extent. Obviously if you are in a official position such as a policeman you have to answer questions such as "why are you arresting me" though. ;)
 
Yahweh said:
The most basic criticism goes a bit like this:

Bob firmly "believes" and practices the Catergorical Imperative. Bob does not lie to people, because he would not want to live in a world where lying is morally acceptable.

One day, while on his daily jog, Bob sees a stranger running by, Bob doesnt have the time to stop and greet the stranger as he looked to be quite in a hurry. Bob continues along, jogging ever-so-delightfully, until a few minutes later Bob comes across another stranger, who's name we learn to be Bill.

Bill says to Bob "I'm a serial killer, and the prey I was about to kill got away, I know he ran by this way, but I dont know where he's hidden. Can you point me where I need to go to find him?"

Now, Bob doesnt believe its morally acceptable to point serial killers in the direction of their prey... but he is also firmly stringent in telling the truth. So naturally, Bob should answer with neither the truth, nor lie, he should answer "No comment". But, is it really that simple? The answer "no comment" probably breaks the Categorical Imperative anyway since one cannot will all people respond to questions in that way?

What's poor Bob to do?!
Click to expand...

Say "I can, but I won't. :D
 
I believe the Cat. Imp. is very appropriate, but I researching the answer to your question I have downgraded my opinion of its practicality.

First off, in the serial killer situation, I follow those Kantians who believe that the second part of the Cat. Imp. (treat all humans as ends and never as means) trumps the first part and therefore a lie in this case is not inappropriate and not violating the spirit of the Cat. Imp.

I have less fatih in its practicality because I only just discovered the third part of the imperative. Kant assumed that all rational agents were able to deduce whether an argument was moral or not through reason alone and so, all rational humans should be able to conclude the same moral laws. I have encountered too many people who have reached adulthood and are unable or unwilling to act rationally.
 
I think that Kant expected us to be able to give priority to the more important of two choices available to us. Is telling the truth more important than saving a life.

If everyone decided that telling the truth is more important than saving a human life--would this be a better world?
 
Radrook said:
I think that Kant expected us to be able to give priority to the more important of two choices available to us. Is telling the truth more important than saving a life.

If everyone decided that telling the truth is more important than saving a human life--would this be a better world?
Click to expand...


I'm fairly new to philosophy so please anyone who's read Kant, please point out if I misrepresent him.

As I understand Kant, the entire basis is that you can't decide between two principles. I think the emphasis is on your personal action (i.e. don't lie, don't kill, don't steal, etc.).

I'll use the example and quote Prof Daniel Robinson used in a lecture. Say you're a sheriff of a town and you have a prisoner in custody. A rampaging mob forms offers an ultimatum: Either kill the prisoner or we'll blow up 5 citizens of the town. Now let's look at another scenario, they say: Either kill the prisoner or we'll blow up, say, Earth.
"Now if you think that somehow makes it easier, you're missing the point, because if you're prepared to do wrong just because it has a desirable outcome, then indeed you're prepared to do wrong. We'll I'd only do it thursdays."

In this example the assumption is that we are under a categorical imperative not to lie. If this is correct then it dosen't matter what the outcome is, a lie is still the wrong thing to do.

I'm not surprised if many or even most of you are reading this post and thinking Kant is a bit of a tosser. But his system does have the advantage that grey-areas are virtually non-existent.
This is in contrast to Utilitanarianism which seems to work well for clear cut situations but quickly becomes bogged down when different principles are weighed against each other.

I'm going out on a limb here but I'd wager that a suitable developed Kantian view could tackle any
Trolley Problem without developing inconsistensies.
 
wittgenst3in said:
As I understand Kant, the entire basis is that you can't decide between two principles.
Click to expand...


But if one applies the following criteria, one cannot help but choose between two alternatives. All that is needed is that one of the alternatrtives be out of kilter with Kan'ts instructions below:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings."

Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means.

Faced with Hitler's order to treat Jews as a means by abusing them, or else die, wouldn't the choice of death be clear?

If not--why?
 
Radrook said:



But if one applies the following criteria, one cannot help but choose between two alternatives. All that is needed is that one of the alternatrtives be out of kilter with Kan'ts instructions below:

Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings."

Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means.

Faced with Hitler's order to treat Jews as a means by abusing them, or else die, wouldn't the choice of death be clear?

If not--why?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean the Nazis saying something like 'Beat this prisoner or we'll kill you.' And you are saying that in order to not violate the CI you would be required to submit to death.

Well in this situation the person is clearly under duress. The prerequisite to the CI is that you have a morally autonomous human being. I doubt that anyone under duress can be considered acting of their own volition or held responsible for their actions.

For example let's say I'm waiting in line for the bank teller and a robber stumbles past with 10 money bags. He drops some, and points a gun at me "Pick up the bags and put them in my truck". Now I don't think you could find a jury in the world that would convict me of robbery. (Even in Texas!)

This idea of course would require carefull definition about what constitutes duress. "Put a bullet in that man or I'll pour this slurpee down your shirt and you'll be really uncomfortable!!" is unlikely to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom