A critique of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative  

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative

According to Kant, categorical imperatives are moral laws that have to be followed by everyone. These are binding. The universalizability principle is imperative to Kant. An act done by someone else should be performed by other people too. A good act is one that can become a universal law.

Kant stated that having control over one’s actions is moral autonomy. A person should be dutiful to oneself rather than to an external authority.[1] ‘Rechtslehre’ literally translates to jurisprudence. In Kant’s view, it contained the meaning of a lot of legal topics like marriages, divorce, contracts, etc.[2]

Kant has tried to integrate values and sacrifices by correlating them. Looking at this from a Kantian perspective, it is imperative to make sacrifices for the creation of values. Values exist extrinsically and not intrinsically.

They can be equated to gifting someone to someone but not expecting anything in return. The notion of sacrifice can be related to everything including religion, relationships, lifestyle, etc. Values are gained over time and not instantaneously.[3]

Kant segregated duties into mainly two divisions: negative duties and positive duties. Negative duties are those duties that cause harm to society and go against established societal norms. These are actions that are forbidden.

On the other hand, positive duties are meant to be followed by the people and they contribute to the society in a positive way. Kant wanted the propagation of positive duties and the curbing of negative duties.[4]

Kant’s most prominent formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the Formula of Universal Law (FUL), is generally thought to demand that one act only on maxims that one can will as universal laws without this generating a contradiction.

Two concepts which Kant emphasised were self-determination and freedom of choice. Self-determination, and freedom of choice are co-related. Self-determination can be defined as “the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order”.

Kant was in favour of this as he wanted people to make self-regulatory decisions without the influence of extenuating factors. Freedom of choice is similar as it means having the liberty to make your own decisions.

By regulating someone’s right to self-determination and taking away their freedom of choice, restrictions are being imposed on them and on their choices. [5] 

The whole idea of categorical imperative revolves around doing actions that others can do too and not have a negative connotation attached to it. The behaviour of a person has to go hand in hand with the ideals laid down by the society.

For example, given an opportunity to help a poor person, an ideal person following this theory would help the person in need. Another example would be not stealing others belonging.[6]

The advent of the West in many nations created chaos for those nations and they have to face repercussions till date. The Britishers who were mass colonizers did a lot of harm and damage to the developing and underdeveloped nations.

The economic revival in countries like Algeria, India, African nations, etc. took a longer duration of time than the colonising nations. From a Kantian point of view, the people of the colonising nations were not doing what they were supposed to do as their actions were publicly damaging at a mass scale. Instead of providing food and shelter to the poor, mass exploitation took place.[7]

Hegel wanted to overcome Kant’s strict dualism system and was an admirer of wholeness. Also, Hegel wanted to keep a relationship between ethics and politics. The ultimate reality consists of a spiritual whole and is connected to humans. Kant has no connections to religion or history. Hegel rejected Kant’s theory.[8]

John Rawls‘ Theory of Justice focused on creating a society that was well-ordered. Ideals of reasonableness and impartiality were also emphasised upon. The two major hypothetical elements were the original position and veil of ignorance. Rawls believed that a well-structured society would function without any problems and people would have a smooth life.[9]

A lacuna is that without lying, reality can be painful. Further, always telling the truth is not possible in real life. Also, it is impossible to treat people and not take advantage of them. In reality, it is extremely difficult to implement Kant’s theory in reality.[10]

References:

[1] Gunnar Beck, Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Rights, 19 ratio Juris 371 (2006).

[2] Nelson Potter, Applying the Categorical Imperative in Kant’s Rechtslehre, 11 jre 37 (2003).

[3] Richard L. Bowes, Sacrifice and the Categorical Imperative of Human Security, 56 int’l j. 649 (2001).

[4] Michael Yudanin, Can Positive Duties be Derived from Kant’s Categorical Imperative?, Vol. 18, No. 3, etmp, 595-614 (2015).

[5] The Monist, Kant’s Practical Philosophy, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 384-41 (1989).

[6] Nelson Potter, Applying the Categorical Imperative in Kant’s Rechtslehre, 11 jre 37 (2003).

[7] Richard L. Bowes, Sacrifice and the Categorical Imperative of Human Security, 56 int’l j. 649 (2001).

[8] Gunnar Beck, Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Rights, 19 ratio Juris 371 (2006).

[9] Nelson Potter, Applying the Categorical Imperative in Kant’s Rechtslehre, 11 jre 37 (2003).

[10] Gunnar Beck, Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Rights, 19 ratio Juris 371 (2006).

This article has been submitted by Kartik Tripathi a student at School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore.