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
Deals with the category of the action rather than the outcome.
The majority of us can agree that lying and stealing are bad, on their own.
Some people will say that lying and stealing become necessary when one is left with no other option (e.g. to feed their family when they have no income).
Some people will say that it doesn’t matter what conditions resulted in the need to lie and steal, the fact that a person lied and stole on its own is morally wrong. Therefore, the whole category, i.e. lying and/or stealing is morally wrong no matter what reasons are used to justify it.
Under Kant’s categorical imperative, the individual conducts themselves by a set of rules that they wish others to hold as evidently true.
For example: I won’t lie and steal, and if I don’t lie and steal, I expect others will do the same.
They believe having consistency and predictability of justice will allow individuals to make better choices, knowing full well the outcome of actions x+y=z every time.
It’s an almost impossible standard to hold, since humans are very hypocritical and tend to dismiss perspectives other than their own or ones they can relate to, but that doesn’t mean we should throw it out altogether.
Ofc, this is as basic as I can manage to explain it. I am very sure I had to omit or sacrifice a lot of nuance and detail, but for what I expect out of an ELI5, this should suffice.
Latest Answers