The Categorical imperative states that you should act only in a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a law. To me, this basically means that you should act in a way that you would want everyone else to act. The next part is act only in such a way that you treat humanity. And last, act in accordance of the law. Which to me, means that you believe everyone should abide by the law and the world would be a better place; for example, obeying the speed limit leads to safer roads however if you go over the speed limit you would contradict yourself to others bc you’re not following the categorical imperative. You should only commit an action if the consequences are in accordance with the law. You should treat everyone humanely because it would be irrational to not.
I agree with the majority of what you stated above. The only thing i really disagree with is when you use the word "consequences". Kant does not believe in doing an action based on what the consequences would be. He focuses on the action itself. An action can not be deemed morally goodnor bad based on the resulting consequences. To use an example from class: helping an old lady across the street does not become morally wrong if she just so happens to get hit by a car while you were helping her.
ReplyDeleteMost of the stated is deemed true; however, let me address the last statement. You say that everyone should be treated humanely, but the aspect of humanity is all about perspective and one's mentality. For example, can you compare a blood-crazed psychopath's sanity to that of an astute scholar. The psychopath,though human, has not the perception of a man,but of a beast. Would it truly be the fault of the psychopath if he were to commit homicide? It is known that a psychopath is mentally unstable and if he were to be locked up in some asylum, would that not be going against the action of being humane? This example proves how the statement contradicts itself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica that Kant was more focused on the concept of duty in ones actions. Kants 2nd proposition states "An action done from duty has its moral worth not in the purpose it attains but from a formal principle of Maxim." Maxim is the principle of doing ones duty whatever the duty may be. This principle is objective in the sense that rationality is implemented into the decision making process of ones actions. The law aspect doesn't necessarily mean a man made law, but a law in which universally we all respect such as killing a person.
ReplyDelete