Immanuel Kant’s The Categorical Imperative
Kant’s The Categorical Imperative addresses moral principles, and human obligation to abide by those morals. He introduces the idea of imperative which is essential commands/orders. That of which there are two: hypothetical or categorical. He focuses on categorical imperative, categorical being “in every context”. He essentially says that moral principles (maxims) that fall under the categorical imperative are to be followed (assuming one is acting morally good), under any circumstance. This in turn benefits society. He uses examples such as killing and lying, stating how if you, as a moral agent, lie or kill, then society should therefore be able to kill or lie, but this would cause the destruction of society and hence the idea that one cannot kill or lie (under the impression of good morals) become categorical imperatives.
He also addresses human obligations in regards to capability, stating how people of talent or prosperity have an obligation to help in the instance that they can because to not help, violates his moral logic. He argues that the end does not justify the means, and that the means are important to address if one wishes to act as a proper moral agent. Essentially your actions should lie within the realm of sense to which the action can legitimately be a universally accepted law of nature, and support human society positively.
While our class understood the essential ideas around Kant’s philosophy, we all had a hard time grasping it as a reality. Given examples such as killing in self-defense, cultural differences, war and other controversial topics, Kant leaves little room for variation in solution and devalues the importance of looking at things from a case by case basis. I too found myself struggling to come to terms with his belief. Generally the flaw in Kant’s analysis revolves around the fact that humans are far too imperfect to all follow the morals he proposes. People will take advantage of the situation regardless and although we should strive for general human societal balance and prosperity, internal competition sets forth barriers for people to come together and truly agree on moral values in which to follow. Also some instances of not “committing” an “immoral” action set under categorical imperative may cause a person to be harmed which is also seen as immoral (the act of hurting someone), such as in mental disorders. In general Kant is being somewhat idealist in his declaration, but the scope is too narrow to implement. (Although I understand that that is essentially what philosophy is for the most part).
This philosophy reminds me of the Ebola epidemic and how we should address it both overseas and nationally. As coverage on Ebola in Africa had lead to growing awareness, panic, and mockery of panic towards the disease, as well as the infections within the country, debates have started on whether we should encourage qualified people to go and combat the disease, and whether we have the right to restrict the entry of or quarantine those possibly exposed within our country. Kant states that those who are able bodied have an obligation to help if they can, yet this disease also can be a threat to their life. As for the quarantine, should people have the right to lock others up for a set period of time if they might threaten the well-being of society? Can we lock up people under assumptions of threat? While Kant may argue distinct answers to the problem, the complexity has lead to the controversy that has saturated our country.
http://in.reuters.com/article/
No comments:
Post a Comment