Categorical

Imperative
 Categorical Imperative
• Among the various deontological ethical theories, the most prominent theory
is that which was propounded by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804).
• Like the other theories opposing consequentialist doctrines, his ethical
theory, known as: the categorical imperative, holds that the rightness (or
wrongness) of an act does not lie on its results or effect.
• It does not agree with the divine command theory that the source of moral
laws is God, since Kant believes that every person is a law-making member
of the moral community.
• The theory is also opposed to the Natural Law Theory, since for Kant, acts
must stem from our special nonnatural powers of reason and will and not
from anything in nature such as our natural inclinations like the Natural Law.
 01
The Good Will
Detaching morality from the zone of contigency
• In detaching morality from the zone of contingency, Kant
wants to place it securely in the area of necessary, absolute,
and universal truth.
• Morality's value is not based on the fact that it has
instrumental value, that it often secures nonmoral goods such
as happiness. Rather, morality is valuable in its own right.
• Kant uses the term "will" to refer to intention or motive.
• For Kant, the only correct motive for moral action is duty.
• Kant would like to assert that other goods or virtues such as
happiness, honor, knowledge, courage, self-control and
health, are only morally valuable if accompanied by good will.
 02
Acting from Duty
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it
• According to Kant, one acts with a good will if he/she does the right thing for the
right reason.
• This respect amounts to what Kant calls acting from duty, Someone who acts
with a good will does what is right, because it is his/her duty to do so, and for no
other reason.
• For Kant, one must perform moral duty for its own sake. Some people conform to
the moral law because they think it will be beneficial for them to do so.
• Some people may also perform right actions cause of certain feelings or
emotions such as sympathy or compassion.
• For Kant, if you have done this good deed because of such feeling or inclination
but not because you have acted according to your reason, such act has no moral
points.
• For Kant then, if you do not will an action from a sense of duty, for instance, to be
fair and honest, your action does not have true moral worth.
 03
The Categorical Imperative
• Kant believes that reason alone can yield a moral law.
• Kant distinguished two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and
categorical.
The formula for a hypothetical imperative is: "If you want X, then
do Y“
The formula for a categorical imperative is simply: "Do Y.“
• Hypothetical, or conditional, imperatives are not the kind of
imperatives that characterize our moral obligations.
• Categorical, or unqualified, imperatives are the right kind of
imperatives for they show proper recognition to the paramount
importance of being morally obliged.
• The categorical imperative is the principle
that describes this sense of unconditional
duty that lies within all of us.
• it is the source of "the moral law within.“
• There are three ways in which the
categorial imperative may be formulated.
These three different formulations (which
we will call here as principles)
 04
Rules must be
Universal
Principle of Universality
• Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is this: "Act only on that
maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a
universal law."
1. Principle of Universal Law - makes us stand outside our personal maxims and
estimate
impartially and impersonally whether they are suitable as rules for all of us to live by.
This principle has some kinship with the Golden Rule, which says that we ought to
"do unto others as we would want them to do unto us.“

Wall (2003, 39) says that there are three important things to note in the Principle of
Universal Law:
1. First, the categorical imperative does not provide us with a list of concrete rules, such
as "don't
steal." "keep your promises," etc.
2. Second, in saying that rules must be universalizable. Kant points out that morality
includes an
element of impartiality.
3. Third, there are no exceptions to rules.
 05
Treating persons as Ends
2. Principle of Respect for Person or the Principle of Ends

"So act as to treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of any other, in every
case as an end and never as merely a means”
 Kant's belief that every human being has an inherent worth that emanates from the sheer
possession of rationality.
 Kant asserts that it is morally wrong to use someone as a thing, or as a mere means for
the good of another, as this violates the person's inherent worth as a rational being.
This is the point expressed in the popular line: "The end does not justify the means. It is
not right to use a person as a means to an end, even if it produces more good for
society”.
We can notice that in the formulation of this principle, it says that we must respect humanity
not
only in the person of others but in our own persons as well.
In an article by Thomas Hill entitled Servility and Self-Respect, he argues that it is sometimes
a moral failing to respect oneself.
What Kant was really after in demanding that no one should treat oneself or others as a
means is the protection and promotion of the human dignity
 06
The Will as Universal
lawgiver
You can enter a subtitle here if you need it
3. Principle of Autonomy

"So act as if you were always through your maxims a law-making member of
the kingdom of ends." By "kingdom of ends.“
• Kant envisions a web of all rational beings, held together by the threads of shared
moral maxims.
• In this principle, Kant is adding another essential component that must be present in
our acceptance of moral rules aside from universalizabity and respect for persons
autonomy.
• For Kant, every rational being must regard oneself as a maker of universal law.

The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy.

The heteronomous person is one whose actions motivated by the authority of others,
whether it be religion, the state, and the school or tradition.
Kant believes that through this form of self-legislation, through understanding and
creating our moral laws on the basis of our reason, we rise above our desires and
inclinations and become true to our nature as rational beings.
 07
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics
Detaching morality from the zone of contigency
One of the major objections to Kant’s theory of moral action is that it
views moral rules as absolute and exceptionless.
• For Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an act is not determined by
its consequences, but by its nature.
• The failure of this theory to deal with cases where two several
values conflict.
The Categorical Imperative does not provide a way to rank
competing rules.
• Another criticism to his theory has to do with its view on the
motivation to do what is right.
• The third criticism that can be raised pertains to the theory’s notion
that only persons have moral standing as members of the “kingdom
of ends”.
 Thanks!
CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and includes
icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik