Please answer the following
questions in a short (250-750 word) blog post, and be prepared to discuss in
class.
A.
Do
you think that the categorical imperative is a good way to determine right and
wrong? Why?
B.
Do
you think that the categorical imperative could help establish world peace?
C.
Compare/contrast
Kant’s theory and a Christian understanding of moral laws.
17 comments:
So do we start at pg. 22 which is in the preface and go to 63 in section 2, or do we just read all of section 2?
Never mind I figured it out.
1. I think the categorical imperative can be a good thing to determine right and wrong. Kant describes the categorical imperative as morality. "Finally, there is one imperative that, without being grounded on any other aim to be achieved through a certain course of conduct as its condi- tion, commands this conduct immediately. This imperative is categorical. It has to do not with the matter of the action and what is to result from it, but with the form and the principle from which it results; and what is essentially good about it consists in the disposition, whatever the result may be. This imperative may be called that of morality." Through this principle, people can see what is right or wrong and see that what they do can help write a new principle for the law which can be better than the first.
2. It could because of its universality. If all the countries of the world could agree on a universal law that everyone follows and that it would keep building and becoming better after each mistake, the world could be at peace. But, we must remember that humans are faulty and will sometimes make mistakes. So, we can't trust man to make world peace. Only God through his providence and working in men's hearts can make world peace.
3. In the Bible, God established a moral law in the Ten Commandments that not only his people Israel were to follow, but also the rest of the world. The way that morality is determined is by God. We know what is moral that pleases God and that is good for our neighbor, that is our fellow man. According to Kant, morality is comprised of maxims created by men and later accepted as a universal law. This seems good, but the problem is that God is not involved. God is the determiner of what is right or wrong, not man.
1. Categorical imperative can be a very effective way to determine right or wrong, but it can also lead to many problems. Although this may seem like a very consistent way to maintain order and unity, it would be very inconsistent. For example, through categorical imperative, we may be told to obey all men who hold authority over us. Initially, this obviously sounds like a generally virtuous and acceptable law. If, hypothetically, local employers were to tell us to work on Sundays over penalty of job termination, we have to technically disobey their laws in order to obey God's laws. This is a case in which categorical imperative would not be a good way to determine right and wrong.
2. Categorical imperative would not help establish world peace. This method may solve several problems, but it would not universally have a positive effect on mankind. For example, we may be told to always give to others what they want/need. This is a very good virtue for numerous people to practice, and would bring about a very positive change in many areas (homeless, world hunger, etc.) However, this could also lead people to believe that it is acceptable to give nuclear power to Iran simply because they ask for it. This method may provide many positive changes for our world, but could not establish world peace.
3. Our God has already provided a set of laws for us to obey first and foremost over all earthly laws. These laws are for all God's people and must be followed closely. Kant's theory is similar in this example, but it is very different in another sense. Both law sets demand absolute obedience, however, God's laws take precedence over any man-made system of laws. Therefore, God's laws are universally superior, while all laws of mankind are only mostly superior.
I believe that although categorical imperative can aid in determining right from wrong, it is not necessarily a good way. Categorical imperative is “that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end…” (Kant 31) Categorical imperative is practical, moral law, apodictic in nature, which is followed for the sake of following, not staking its validity in ulterior motive. When such moral laws are constructed and followed, the entire “means to an end” structure becomes inconsequential. This is in opposition to hypothetical imperative, which depends on the “end”. If people followed categorical imperative, in one sense the “rules” would be clear and unbiased. Right and wrong would seemingly be clearly established. The issue I have with this method has to do with the priori. The priori is “knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences…” (Brittanica) This concept reduces the importance of individualism in my mind. I maintain this position because the method of categorical imperative seems to me to establish laws based on this purely non-empirical “knowledge” that was always present. In my mind, this ideology pushes humanity to stop thinking for itself, and blindly follow laws based on presupposition. In summation, although “right and wrong” can be seemingly differentiated, I believe that it is only resolved on the surface if gone about in this fashion. If people begin to question the “why” behind laws, as they are surely wont to do, they shift to the hypothetical and the categorical imperative is no longer sufficient.
Without taking the nature of humanity into account, I believe the categorical imperative could assist in establishing world peace. If everyone truly acted “only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”, (Kant 37) the world would be a much nicer place. However, the nature of man does not, I’m afraid, allow for such measures. Man is selfish and by very nature generally unwilling to be subjected to a higher law, especially one which does not take into account the “reason” for following. So yes, categorical imperative could help establish world peace if man were only willing to follow. However, having evaluated the natural inclinations of humanity, the confiscation of the individual thought and rights will not sit well with man, and before long peace will once again be disrupted.
A Christian understanding of morals differs greatly from Kant’s viewpoint. Kant maintains that “all moral concepts have their seat and origin fully a priori in reason, and this as much in the most common human reason as in that reason which is in highest measure speculative; that these concepts cannot be abstracted from any empirical, and
therefore mere contingent, cognition; that their dignity lies precisely in this purity of their origin. (Kant 28) Christian thought includes that most important concept, that all good comes from God alone, for He is pure goodness. He encompasses all that is true, and so his “priori” is something which we can base our faith upon. Kant bases his “priori” on human reason and man’s evaluation of what is “good”.
Very well done, Cassie!
1. I do not think categorical imperative is an effective way to determine right or wrong. Kant wishes for us to treat every decision we make as an action that would become a universal law. Our motives for our actions must be pure, with no ulterior motive, and if they violate their "universal law" they are holding themselves to different standard then they would of everyone else. Why is this a bad thing? If each individual decided each and every universal law, these laws would constantly be changing. One day a certain action would be considered good and the next it would be considered bad. We would constantly be flip-flopping the signs of "moral" and "unmoral" because our human minds are far from perfect and we need a perfect source to determain the right from wrong.
2. In this same regard I also do not believe this theory would establish world peace, in fact it could do the exact opposite. Once again, with constant changing positions it would be perfectly fine one day to let immigrants come to the United States since everyone deserves a change at the American dream, but the next day it could be bad because some will only take advantage of the system. Human reasoning is flawed and will not bring world peace.
3. The main difference in these two moral standards is that one (Kant's theory) comes from the reasoning of man, while the other (God's) comes from a perfect heavenly being. As Christians our duty is to follow God's moral standards and rules before any earthly government. Even though both standards are fighting for world unity, only one will ever be able to achieve that and that is God's moral standard.
The categorical imperative, explained by Kant is in some ways a good process in which to determine right from wrong. The categorical imperative “declares the action for itself as objectively necessary without reference to any aim, also without any other end.” Pg. 31. It essentially means that whatever your action or motive is you have to think if it could be applied at a universal law to everyone else. I it cannot then it should probably not be done. You also have to take into account that people cannot just be a means to your end, but also to have free will. This process could be used as a good way for trying to determine right from wrong, because it takes other people into account and how your actions would affect them. It also does not depend on circumstance, so you can’t say something is right for your situation if, when applied to everyone else, it is wrong.
I think that the categorical imperative could help in establishing world peace, assuming we are not looking at the nature of man and assuming that everyone could follow it perfectly and that they interpret the law in the exact same way. The reason I think this is because it is a universal law. Whatever action or motive is examined by its standards, it gets held up to how it would affect everyone and does not take circumstance into consideration. For this to happen though you would also have to assume that since everyone was following the categorical imperative perfectly, that there is no reason for justice. Since the law does not take circumstance into account, certain punishments, such as imprisonment or death that are meant to serve justice, would be considered morally wrong, and all things done that where morally wrong would go unchecked.
I think the biggest difference between Kant’s theories of how to determine whether something is morally right of wrong, is that in his categorical imperative, it is man who is deciding whether something is morally right or wrong, while from the Christian point of view it is ultimately God who declares what is right or wrong. Christians look to the Bible for moral guidance, while in Kant’s theory, man looks within and compares to other people.
1. The categorical imperative is an “unconditional moral principle that one's behavior should accord with universalizable maxims which respect persons as ends in themselves; the obligation to do one's duty for its own sake and not in pursuit of further ends” (Dictionary). In essence this means that the maxim, or motivating principle, behind an action must be able to be applied to a universal law and have no other end goals. I do not believe the categorical imperative would be a good way to determine right and wrong because it assumes that all people automatically have the same perspective on duty and moral principles. Acting “as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (Kant 38) can mean different things to different people. Kant says this theory should be based strictly on reasoning and deduction not human experience or personal values. However, reason is viewed differently by different people at different time and in different cultures. What may appear to one person to be a good and reasonable action for all of the universe, could be seen as wrong by another person. Furthermore, the right thing to do can depend upon a situation at hand; there is not always one law that works for every situation.
2. For similar reasons I do not think that the categorical imperative could establish world peace. This is primarily due to human nature. Humans are naturally selfish and want what is best for themselves. Even on a higher level, each country wants what is best for its own people. Also, the cultures of various countries have influence on their perspective of the world and peace.
3. While Kant does touch on the fact that all men should be treated with individual worth and dignity, his categorical imperative places man’s ability to reason as the highest form of authority and judgement. As Christians, we know that God is the highest authority, and he is the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong, moral and immoral.
Kant’s theory of Categorical Imperative is not altogether bad and can benefit a community by setting a foundation of universal laws, but it is not a concrete theory in my opinion and personally does not fully determine right from wrong. Kant believed that one should “act only according to that maximum by which you can at the same time will that it shall become a universal law” (Kant 37). This definition or ideology became the backbone for the idea of Categorical Imperative. Though Categorical Imperative is sustainable and clear I feel that this moral theory covers only the surface of true morality and skirts along the lines of the idea of doing a duty for duties sake. It gets rid of any ideas of personal morality and establishes the human to impede the thought of self-progress and thoughtlessly follow laws established by other’s depictions of what is right and/or wrong. This lack of Egoism hinders one to have a personal view of morality. If this ideology was questioned, which any inquisitive human would be willing to do so, it could easily be overruled because of the lack of definition. One must have a strong self-governing reason which demands accountability and a solid moral foundation to follow this ideology otherwise he could easily get caught up in other morals that are not established or based on biblical truth. In the end Categorical Imperative provides a practical method for evaluating human actions but does not establish a universal concrete set for what is right and wrong.
Like Cassie had mentioned I believe that the only way Categorical Imperative could establish world peace is if man’s sinful human nature was taken out of the equation. But when evaluating this idea one cannot be so blind as to take out the most definite cause of world problems, man’s sinful human nature. When different cultures, religions, and ideologies get in the way of Categorical Imperative personally I believe it does not have a solid backbone to support and defend its’ ideas and theories. It is too general to be universally successful and too simplistic amongst a culture of intellectuals. Therefore I do not believe that Categorical Imperative could create world peace in the end.
Kant’s theory and Christian understanding of moral laws differentiate in many areas. Kant believes that one cannot attain or represent morality by examples, but this is in fact false. “But where do we get the concept of God as the highest good? Solely from the [Ak 4:409] idea that reason projects a priori of moral perfection and connects inseparably with the concept of a free will. In morality there is no imitation, and examples serve only for encouragement…” (Kant). As Christians we believe that God is our one source of moral truth. His experiences on earth, recorded in the Bible, show us how to mirror Him who defined what is right and/or wrong. Though God is a great example to us He was not just an example but established biblical morality. In the end Kant believes that morality was based on reason where as Christians believe that God is the ultimate source of truth and our guide to sound morality.
Categorical imperative requires that something be done no matter the circumstances or the person. It is not done with the end or a goal in mind but as an obligation because it is morally good. This is in the right direction because “the natural end that all human beings have is their own happiness (48).” Thus categorical imperative can help determine right and wrong but it also expects a lot from humankind. For instance everyone is going to have to have the same morals because Kant writes that one should "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." (37)
In a real world I do not think that categorical imperative would help establish world peace. In the unlikelihood that everyone agreed to this type of rule and could make decisions without any bias to circumstance and personal life situation, then yes, world peace might be achievable. The biggest reason I do not think it would work is that the human will is corrupted whereas Kant sees it as primarily or even entirely good. Immoral people cannot create a good law and even if that were achievable we could not keep it as has been proven by the Bible.
Kant’s theory and Christian morals are very different. In the theory, a law could be created and treated as if the rest of nature followed it. In Christianity, only God makes the laws and only God can keep them. Because not everyone is a Christian though not everyone has the same values and so mainly look out for themselves.
The categorical imperative is not a good way to determine right or wrong because life is so complex that there is no way that one rule or moral standard could apply to every circumstance. Consider that the Golden Rule is your categorical imperative, you should do to others what you would want done to yourself. You then as a parent, have the hypothetical imperative “if I want my child to do something, I will tell them to do it.” At first glance this seems perfectly fine, but when checking it out with your categorical imperative, you realize you definitely don’t want your child telling you what to do, so you conclude that either you need a different categorical imperative or you can’t tell your child what to do because it isn’t right. Even if you decide to go with a categorical imperative of “obey those in authority”, there are still questions of what to do if they tell me to do something I think is wrong. It is for these reasons that the categorical imperative is not suited for judging right or wrong.
Because the categorical imperative cannot possibly apply to every situation, it is not suited for establishing world peace. It could only create confusion because people trying to make good moral decisions would certainly run into a situation where that moral decision would not agree with the established categorical imperative thus causing even more conflict.
We could say that Kant’s views are all relative to what is commonly accepted while the Bible is absolute and is given to us by God, the ultimate source of truth. While it is certainly true that we should obey God and his Word above everything else, the ideas of morality that we are born with come from God and are made stronger by studying his Word. The reason we don’t need to keep referencing God’s word every second of the day is because God gave us His moral code internally so that we would naturally want to do what he commands. That is why when people like Kant try to create, or at least define a system of morality, the hardest part is determining why we should behave in that way. For Christians the answer is easy, because God commands it, but coming at it with a purely secular approach, makes the challenge impossible. Both Kant and the Bible explain what is already there, one in a relative, secular way, and the other in an absolute, supernatural way.
Categorical imperative is defined by Kant as “… that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself without any reference to another end” or put another way “…if it [an action] is represented as good in itself, hence necessary, as the principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason, then it is categorical” (Kant 31). Although at first glance, categorical imperative sounds like a beneficial moral law, it cannot be applied as an all-inclusive rule to judge right and wrong. Even Kant confesses that one problem “with this categorical imperative, or law or morality, the ground of difficulty (of having insight into its possibility) is very great indeed” (Kant 36). If people are supposed to follow through with this moral law they must “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant 37). The problem with this idea as that when reviewing whether something is good or bad one cannot think of their own particular situation, but have to make sure it can be right in anyone’s situation. Sometimes specific situations have to be taken into account when determining right and wrong. An example would be the law, “Obey your parents.” If that became a universal law it would be considered wrong to break it even if in your situation you parents asked you to do something that went against God’s rules.
I do not think that categorical imperative could establish world peace. Man is sinful and makes mistakes. Even if one tried to follow the rule, “act only in accordance with that maxim though which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” he would fail at some time or another. Like I said earlier categorical imperative cannot work because it disregards specific situations. Using categorical imperative to create world peace would only add to the number of different situations and beliefs that come from various religions and cultures. In the end the goal to create moral rules (following categorical imperative) for world peace would only cause more chaos in our world.
Kant believes that our morality is determined by maxims that we create. This relies individualism and rationalism, which put man’s trust in himself and his own knowledge rather than God. Man cannot be the determiner of right and wrong because he is flawed and sinful. As Christians, the Bible and God are our ultimate moral compasses. We trust God to be the righteous judge for every action. Both views of morality require self-control, obedience, and trust, but no one can truly accomplish these without God’s help.
I think categorical imperative is in some ways a useful way to determine right and wrong but overall it not very successful. As Kant states, “This imperative is categorical. It has to do not with the matter of the action and what is to result from it, but with the form and the principle from which it results; and what is essentially good about it consists in the disposition, whatever the result may be” (33). Categorical imperative can be useful in establishing universal laws, which then can be determined if that action or motive was right or wrong. Categorical imperative makes and brings about laws that were formed by man, no matter if those laws were right or wrong they then become universal. This is where categorical imperative is not successful in finding out what is right and wrong. Once a law becomes universal people are ordered to obey it no matter if it is right or wrong. The categorical imperative has people following a set of laws and makes them think that is how one should determine right from wrong.
I don’t think that categorical imperative would help establish world peace. Like many have mentioned, man and the world are corrupted by sin. So what one man may find right, pure, or a good standard to live by might not be someone else’s view. Man is sinful which also leads his actions and thoughts to be. If we took categorical imperative, which is taking an assumption of someone’s and making it into a universal law it would not be helpful in bringing world peace. For there are so many different ideas, beliefs, views, and cultures that don’t agree with one another and to have everyone follow a universal law it would end up destroying things more than bringing about peace.
Kant’s seems to believe that the law is good and that man should create their own moral standards. Also he believes if that the motivation and thought behind and action can also help determine moral principles. Kant believes that mans thoughts, assumptions, and universal laws determine moral truth. Although, as Christians we believe that there is one God and He is powerful and reigns overall. God provides us with the scriptures as a guide, on how to live our lives and decide what is right and wrong. The motivation behind a situation is also important to Christians, we need to make sure our heart is in the right place but most of all the action would be in obedience to God and the scriptures view on moral standards.
A: I don’t believe the categorical imperative is good. I think what Kant is trying to say is that if your actions seem, to you, good enough for a universal law, then that fits inside the categorical imperative. He gives examples of people who want something or don’t want to change their current behavior. They then have to decide if what they want needs to change or if it could become a universal law. I don’t think that could work because everyone has a different “universal laws”. One person can see something as right and another person can see it as wrong. For example, someone could say “I think it should become universal law, that, if I need food, I can rob the grocery store.” You can’t just let anyone decide what’s right and wrong. People could use the categorical imperative as a way to get what they want or an easy way out.
B: If the world could agree on universal laws, then maybe world peace could be established. They would have to agree on what is morally right and what is best for the people of the earth. This, unfortunately, seems impossible because of everyone’s different worldviews. The leaders of the world wouldn’t be the only people to have to agree. EVERYONE would have to. Otherwise, you have unhappy citizens. I understand happiness isn’t everything, but when some people aren’t happy, that could lead to some very bad things.
C: I think Kant knows there needs to be morals, but he might not understand what is “moral”. He seems to believe you can come up with your own morals. A Christian understanding of morals, however, is different. Morals have been set in place by God, and as Christians, we need to follow that. Granted, people do have a moral compass and sometimes can tell what is right from wrong. But most of the time, people can’t lead themselves. God has set a clear path of morals we need to follow.
While categorical imperative can be used to help us it shouldn’t be the final factor in how we determine what is right and wrong. Why? There are too many differences in culture, situation, and life for a single rule to apply to each and every circumstance. For example, if respecting what our employers/authority say and being obedient is a categorical imperative that would be viewed as right. But there are times when that could be wrong. Following the instructions would be right, ignoring them would be wrong, but what if the instructions are wrong? The issue pops up that instead of doing good, you are following instruction and therefore doing right but ultimately doing something terribly wrong. For example, if you are working for a murderer and he instructs you to buy the rope and sharpen the knife categorical imperative would say that doing so was right, but any human would argue that assisting in murder is terribly wrong. In this way not every situation would agree that following orders is right.
I think that categorical imperative could establish world peace but is extremely unlikely. It would only work if everyone wanted world peace and had no ulterior motives. It would be very easy to abuse and because of our sinful nature I think it would be very difficult for all humans to submit to categorical imperative. How easy would it be to to put all weaponry in one place to destroy it and then have one group of people, who aren’t submitted to categorical imperative, to start firing and killing everyone? There would be an even worse outcome than what is happening on our battlefields today.
Kant’s theory is written to bring moral laws and understanding into the world, for Christians this is unnecessary as we already have those moral guidelines in the Bible. The difference is that categorical imperative is written and created by man, whatever man wills is what should be done, and ultimately because of human nature, not all of what man wills is good. There are differences in what men believe to be good and there would not be any way to create absolute moral laws for everyone in the world because we are imperfect and incapable of doing so. The Bible, on the other hand, is the will of God. God is good and perfect; there is nothing other than the absolute and perfect will of God that can rule and bring a universal understanding of moral laws.
Although Kant would argue that categorical imperative is a beneficial theory that has the potential to determine wrong from right, in my opinion it is not the most effective way to make that differentiation. Kant describes categorical imperative as “that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end…” (Kant 31) Essentially, categorical imperative is a moral law that man must follow purely for the sake of following, while abandoning all motives for our actions. The neglect of the “means to an end” way of morality would allow for all rules to be unbiased and easy to understand, and the distinction between right and wrong would not be subjective. This seems ideal, except for the priori, which is essentially a kind of preordained knowledge, a knowledge that is independent of all life experiences. This theory says that people should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” but this strips mankind of the right to be individuals in all things, including morality. (Kant 37) Instead this ideology claims that mankind should become almost robotic, following laws, moral and otherwise, that are presupposed. But the reality is, mankind’s morals have been and will always be subjective. God created man to be thinking, creative beings, and when this common curiosity and uniqueness is removed man has lost its purpose for living. So while categorical imperative seems like an ideal way to differentiate right from wrong, it does not really address that mankind functions as individuals. People will always question laws; it’s in our nature. Therefore the categorical imperative is too limited a theory to determine wrong and right.
Upon first glace, categorical imperative appears to be a perfect solution to world peace. It is true that if everyone followed a certain set of presupposed maxims that the world would be infinitely more peaceful. However, again one must take into account the nature of humanity. Mankind is inherently selfish. With this knowledge in mind, would enforcing a set of “universal laws” without giving a reason to follow these laws (as the theory of categorical imperative would) be globally accepted? I do not think so. If mankind were able, and even willing to follow a set of laws such as categorical imperative would set forth, world peace would be easily established. But after examination of intrinsic tendencies of man, one could only conclude that the peace would be short lived at best.
Kant’s theory and the Christian worldview of morality vary greatly. Kant believed that we should live according to certain maxims that we create. This belief relies on man’s own rationale. Contrary to this, Christians believe that God is the ultimate source of truth. God, along with scripture, guide our actions and help us to understand what is right and wrong.
Post a Comment