The Categorical Imperative vs Layman's Morality

Funnily enough, I did an ethics exam today, and one of the questions I chose to do was Kantian ethics. Thanks TC.

I think the categorical imperative in general is just far too rigid to be considered as a good ethical system. Have you came across Kant's own example; imagine the following scenario: You are going for a gentle stroll, suddenly you see a frightened man run past you, almost immediately after, a man with a knife approaches you asking for the where the first man was heading. According to Kant, you should tell him the truth, as otherwise you be violating the first maxim of the categorcial imperative i.e only commit an act if you would wish such an act to be universalised.

That is simply not right. Kant relies on an idealist view of humanity, in which all people are completely autonomous, rational moral agents -- who will reason correctly at all times. This is sheer idealism on Kant's part.

I think the categorical imperative in general is just far too rigid to be considered as a good ethical system. Have you came across Kant's own example; imagine the following scenario: You are going for a gentle stroll, suddenly you see a frightened man run past you, almost immediately after, a man with a knife approaches you asking for the where the first man was heading. According to Kant, you should tell him the truth, as otherwise you be violating the first maxim of the categorcial imperative i.e only commit an act if you would wish such an act to be universalised.

MetalGear_Ninty

Why on Earth would Kant's system of ethics compel you to tell him the truth? Surely one would agree that the world would be better if no one aided one who wished to murder, thus making it completely in accordance with his system not to do so. That one is unable to effectively apply someone's system of ethics does not make them bad if properly understood. :P

Bleah I don't like Kant's system of ethics at all. The golden rule is hardly perfect but it's simple enough to work fairly effectively.domatron23

It seems to me that Kant's system of ethics is very much like the golden rule, really. It effectively says that one should only do that which would improve the world if everyone did it - in other words, do what you believe others should do, and do not do what you believe others should not do, nearly exactly as the golden rule says.

I subscribe quite strongly to Kant's system, myself. I think people misunderstand it by attempting to make it too broad. Kant was quite clear that the circumstances matter - it is simply the case that if one acts in such a way in a given set of circumstances, then one ought to believe that everyone ought to act in the same way in the same set of circumstances, and if that is not the case, then one ought not to act in that way.

It effectively says that one should only do that which would improve the world if everyone did it

GabuEx

That sounds more like Indirect utilitarianism than Kant's categorical imperative. Deontological systems of morality have nothing to do with improving the world.

That sounds more like Indirect utilitarianism than Kant's categorical imperative. Deontological systems of morality have nothing to do with improving the world.domatron23

Well, Kant's system says that one should not do what one would not believe everyone should do, and I can't imagine any other reason why one would believe everyone should do something if they did not believe it brought with it a benefit, but yes, technically you're right that that's a jump not present in Kant's system of ethics.

But that doesn't really change the remainder of what I said, though.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]That sounds more like Indirect utilitarianism than Kant's categorical imperative. Deontological systems of morality have nothing to do with improving the world.GabuEx

Well, Kant's system says that one should not do what one would not believe everyone should do, and I can't imagine any other reason why one would believe everyone should do something if they did not believe it brought with it a benefit, but yes, technically you're right that that's a jump not present in Kant's system of ethics.

But that doesn't really change the remainder of what I said, though.

This is specifically what Kant said: "I ought never to act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law".

Kant's system requires universality which is far too rigid and inflexible like MgN said. I guess though if you're going to be hyper-specific with Kant's system then it would kinda work except that now you have an infinite number of categorical imperatives.

On a different note i'm not so sure that rationality alone can produce appropriate categorical imperatives. We all know that HAL from 2001 a space odyssey kind of dropped the ball on that even though he was very rational.

This is specifically what Kant said: "I ought never to act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law".

Kant's system requires universality which is far too rigid and inflexible like MgN said. I guess though if you're going to be hyper-specific with Kant's system then it would kinda work except that now you have an infinite number of categorical imperatives.

domatron23

Like I said, what he meant by that is not that we ought to operate under absurdly simplified rules, like "never steal" or "always tell the truth" or whatnot. What he's really arguing against, at least as I understand it, is hypocrisy and people special-casing themselves - if one would not want to be on the receiving end of an action, then one ought also not be on the doing end of that action, as that would be in violation of the idea that everything you do should be something you feel everyone should do.

On a different note i'm not so sure that rationality alone can produce appropriate categorical imperatives. We all know that HAL from 2001 a space odyssey kind of dropped the ball on that even though he was very rational.

domatron23

Well yes, that's an entirely different question, but I think it would torpedo a lot more than Kant's system of ethics if it were impossible to define categorical imperatives.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

This is specifically what Kant said: "I ought never to act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should become a universal law".

Kant's system requires universality which is far too rigid and inflexible like MgN said. I guess though if you're going to be hyper-specific with Kant's system then it would kinda work except that now you have an infinite number of categorical imperatives.

GabuEx

Like I said, what he meant by that is not that we ought to operate under absurdly simplified rules, like "never steal" or "always tell the truth" or whatnot. What he's really arguing against, at least as I understand it, is hypocrisy and people special-casing themselves - if one would not want to be on the receiving end of an action, then one ought also not be on the doing end of that action, as that would be in violation of the idea that everything you do should be something you feel everyone should do.

Surely there are special cases though. What about frequency dependent where it is rational for some to do X and others to do Y but irrational for all to do X or Y?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

I think the categorical imperative in general is just far too rigid to be considered as a good ethical system. Have you came across Kant's own example; imagine the following scenario: You are going for a gentle stroll, suddenly you see a frightened man run past you, almost immediately after, a man with a knife approaches you asking for the where the first man was heading. According to Kant, you should tell him the truth, as otherwise you be violating the first maxim of the categorcial imperative i.e only commit an act if you would wish such an act to be universalised.

GabuEx

Why on Earth would Kant's system of ethics compel you to tell him the truth? Surely one would agree that the world would be better if no one aided one who wished to murder, thus making it completely in accordance with his system not to do so. That one is unable to effectively apply someone's system of ethics does not make them bad if properly understood. :P

I think I understand the categorical imperative extremely well, which evidently cannot be said for some people. :P

I think the categorical imperative in general is just far too rigid to be considered as a good ethical system. Have you came across Kant's own example; imagine the following scenario: You are going for a gentle stroll, suddenly you see a frightened man run past you, almost immediately after, a man with a knife approaches you asking for the where the first man was heading.MetalGear_Ninty