I have to understand it for a debate in class about the death penalty, but I can’t wrap my head around it just right
In: 6
(This is as far as I remember and understand it. I could very well misremember or have misunderstood some things.)
There are two different possible kinds of moral imperative:
1. Hypothetical imperative. Imperatives of this sort will depend upon the outcome that is being sought. So for example, if the goal is to help your friend in his marriage, there would be certain actions that would lead to that goal. And so those actions would be imperative to get to that goal. The actions you should take are dependent upon the goal that you want to achieve. Now at this point, the question naturally is “what is the goal that we want to achieve?” The most common answer (but not the only one) that you’ll get is the hedonistic one, that we should maximise pleasure and minimise pain.
2. Categorical imperative. Imperatives of this sort depend purely on the action itself. So for example, the action of going through a red light. That action itself is imperative for drivers to not take. It doesn’t really matter what the goal is. What matters is the category that the action itself falls into. The question then is, how do we decide what actions are good (and thus should be done) and which actions are bad (and thus should be avoided). And for this, Kant turns to his universalising principle, that we judge actions based on imagining what would happen if everyone acted in that way. If everyone was to go through red lights, that would obviously be problematic. And so, everyone should stop at them. Even if your individual circumstances might make it seem like you should break the rule, what is morally correct is to always follow the rule and act consistently.
Please do correct or clarify anything I am mistaken on or poorly worded!
Latest Answers