Kant's Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant is considered to be one of the most influential philosophers in modern history. A deontological theorist, Kant firmly believed that all moral requirements are based on the duties of rational beings, and thus should be applied with absolute consistency. Further, he looked toward the implications of the action itself, rather than its potential consequences. His theories have been subject to debate since publication, but their influence in the philosophical community cannot be understated. Kantian ethics, first and foremost, hinge on the belief that nothing has moral worth without acting according to good will. This means even taking the right action cannot be moral if done with the wrong intentions. To Kant, the only thing that

The Categorical Imperative commands unconditionally, regardless of situational variances, and is based on maxims. Maxims are rules or principles guiding the way rational beings act. Kant argues the only maxims that should be acted upon are ones that a person would simultaneously will to become universal law. He defends his theory of being good “for the sake of duty” by looking toward reason. The only reasonable duties, according to Kant, are ones that rational beings would agree to apply universally. For example, if one were to lie, they would be following the maxim, “It is morally permissible to lie.” As this maxim would be self-defeating and therefore unable to be adopted universally, Kant believes one should never lie. Similarly, other maxims outlined in his writing create Categorical Imperatives prohibiting theft and

One of the most prominent focuses on his absolute discounting of consequences when evaluating the morality of an action. Kant would argue that it is unwise to base moral judgments solely on outcome, and while this might be true, it is equally as unwise to overlook potential outcomes altogether. An extreme, though valid, example highlighting this debate might go as follows: suppose one has the opportunity to travel back in time to murder Adolf Hitler and save the lives of 6 million innocents. Kant’s deontological viewpoint would absolutely forbid Hitler’s assassination, regardless of any potential positive consequence. In this situation, the premise that any rational person would agree to Kant’s universalized maxim “Do not murder” seems extremely hard to swallow, and unveils a gap in the