Notes and Study Questions for the selections from Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals in Wilcox and Wilcox, Applied Ethics -- Part Two

 

5.      On page 29 he begins to explain his famous “Categorical Imperative.”  If you read this section carefully, I think you will see that the basic idea is the one expressed by the familiar question, “What if everyone did that?” 

6.      Try to sort out: the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, and the division of hypothetical imperatives into problematic and assertoric.   Some notes:

a.       A hypothetical imperative tells you that if you want to attain a certain goal, then you must act in a certain way.  (If you want to get into medical school, then you must study hard.  If you want people to trust you, then you ought to tell the truth. Even: If you want to get into heaven, then you must obey God’s laws. )  These imperatives only apply to a person who wants to attain that goal.  That is, they only apply to me on the hypothesis that I want to attain the goal.  If I don’t want to attain that goal, then the imperative has no force for me.

                                                   i.      A problematic hypothetical imperative says that an action is good for some purpose that you may or may not have.  (You may or may not want to get into medical school.)  Whether you want to attain that goal is problematic.

                                                 ii.      An assertoric hypothetical imperative says that an action is good for some purpose that you necessarily do have.  Happiness is such a goal.  Kant thinks that whatever else we want (or don’t want) we certainly want to be happy.  So we may confidently assert that you ought to do what is necessary to attain happiness.  We need not worry that you will reject this goal.  But the imperative is still conditional.  Its form is still “If you want to be happy, then you should _______.”  (Fill in the blank with some action.) 

b.      A categorical imperative contains no ‘if’s.  It simply tells you to do something (or not to do something).  (Don’t steal.  Honor your parents.  Never lie.)  Kant thinks that we will agree that moral rules have this form.  They apply to everyone.  You can’t evade a moral rule by saying, “Well, I don’t happen to want ______.”  (Fill in the blank with some goal.) 

c.       Kant is trying to explain how it is possible for there to be a valid categorical imperative.  It’s not hard to understand how reason can tell me what to do if I want to reach a certain goal.  But how can reason tell me that I ought to act in a certain way, no matter what I want?  How can there be an imperative that applies to me regardless of my goals or purposes?  What could such an imperative say?  And why should I regard it as binding on me?

d.      “apodeictic” (p.31) means “self-evident”

7.      (P.31)  Since we are looking for an imperative that applies to anyone, regardless of his or her desires and purposes, we cannot appeal to those desires and purposes.  All we have to work with is “the mere concept of a categorical imperative” – that is, a command that every rational creature is obliged to obey.  Since we cannot appeal to any particular content (desire, purpose, goal), we are left with the form – that is, with the fact that this command we are looking for has the form of a law for all rational beings (Kant says “the universality of a law as such”).  So the only possible categorical imperative must be an imperative that tells us to follow the rules that are fit to be universal laws (laws for everyone).  Think about it.

 

8.      In essence, then, the Categorical Imperative is a test for the rightness or wrongness of actions.  If I am thinking about acting in a certain way, I should ask myself whether I can reasonably want everyone to act in that way.  More precisely, I should ask myself, “What rule would I be following, if I did what I am thinking about doing.”  My rule would include not only what I am proposing to do but also some description of the circumstances in which I am tempted to do it.  The rule, then, would look something like this: “When I am in such-and-such circumstances, I will do such-and-such.”  For example, it might be, “When I want something very badly, and I can’t afford to buy it, and I think I can steal it without getting caught, then I will steal it.”  Or it might be, “When I want something very badly, and I can’t afford to buy it, I will work and save my money until I can afford to buy it.”  Then I should ask myself whether I can reasonably want (Kant says “will”) everyone to follow this rule.  If the answer is ‘yes’, then what I am thinking of doing is morally permissible.  If the answer is ‘no’, then what I am thinking about doing is wrong. (Which of the two rules I just gave as examples would pass this test?  Why?) Try to understand the reasoning that Kant uses to show, in each of his four examples (pp. 32-33), that what the person is proposing to do is contrary to the categorical imperative (i.e., cannot be made into a universal law).  (Examples 2 and 4 are easier to understand.  Don’t worry if #s 1 and 3 seem obscure.)

 

9.      (Pp. 33-35) Kant now introduces another important (and famous) idea. He claims that the categorical imperative can be expressed in a different way: as a principle requiring us to respect persons  (to treat them as ‘ends in themselves’ and not just as means to your ends).  He thinks that this new idea is (in some sense) equivalent to the earlier ones.  This is not easy to see.

a.        Try to get clear on Kant's distinction between an objective end and a subjective (or contingent) end.  ("End" here means, roughly, "goal," "purpose," or "reason for acting.") 

b.      Note his claim that only an objective end can give us a moral law.  I think the idea is roughly this: Because it is a categorical imperative, the moral law commands us to act in certain ways regardless of what we want or how we feel.  This makes sense only if there are some creatures in the world whose value we must respect regardless of what we want or how we feel about them.  Such creatures are those we call persons.  Persons must be respected even when they are thwarting our plans and even when we don’t like them.   (It is important to keep in mind, though, that the respect Kant is talking about here is not the sort of respect we feel for people who are especially accomplished or noble.  It might be called ‘minimal respect’ – the sort of respect a person deserves just because he or she is a person.  One can respect a person, in this sense, even while punishing them for committing a crime.)  If there were no such creatures, if everything in the world had only instrumental value (like a tool), then there would be nothing wrong with doing whatever you wanted.  We wouldn’t need morality; there would be no moral law.

c.       Note also how he discusses the same four examples (seen above on pp.30-32) from this new angle (pp.35-36).  Do some of them make more sense when considered in this new way than they did when they were discussed in terms of ‘universal law’?