Kant's explanation of the categorical imperative raises interesting questions of morality, rationale, and universality. I am usually extremely reluctant to take seriously any argument that requires "universality," given the immeasurable differences in human experience around the world. Even arguing that there exists a universal understanding of what is "rationale" seems risky given my Foucault-influenced mind, which focuses on the socialization of the mind itself and questions any notion of "naturalness" and thus "universality."
Even with my reluctance, Kant mostly succeeds in convincing me of the first aspect of the categorical imperative, which is that one should always act in such a way that s/he can will the maxim of her/his actions as universal law. The individual would (in theory) be rational and thus be comfortable expecting every other rational individual to act in the same way. This principle is not situational but universal, always applying to every situation. My immediate reaction to this idea was hesitancy, thinking of every possible objection to this supposed truth. For example, I thought about murder. When Bin Laden was killed, the majority of Americans rejoiced, high fiving friends and celebrating as if we had just beat a rival football team in an important game. The general opinion of the moment seemed to be that, "Yes, of course we are happy. He deserved to be killed." The subsequent underlying maxim of this celebratory vibe seemed to then be, "If someone kills, especially in large number, s/he deserves to be killed also." Am I comfortable with this being a universal truth with no exceptions, ever? Are you?
Using the concept of "universality" forces us to answer questions we are usually either uncomfortable answering or that we try to provide vague, non-concrete solutions for. The black and whiteness of calling something "universal" forces us (according to Kant) to concede that yes, even lying to protect your own life in the Witness Protection Program is immoral. Calling something that seems "right" to us is inherently uncomfortable because the categorical imperative allows for no gray area, and we love gray areas.
I'm glad you used the example of Bin Laden, because that whole situation personally bothered me. Seeing so many people celebrate the death of another person was disturbing, despite all the chaos and wrong doings Bin Laden was responsible for. Now that I'm familiar with the concept of a maxim, the maxim posed here is exactly how I contemplated the scenario. And I could not accept this as an universal truth.
ReplyDeleteI would like to pick up your example of Bin Laden and of the Witness Protection Program:
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understood Kant, his imperative means that everybody who is exactly the same situation, that is to say with all the same circumstances, has to act in the way that your maxim tells you.
In the example of Bin Laden, we could say that if the US-Military is able to kill a man who did all this things to the country they protect, it is morally correct to do it, because we can answer the question, if we want everybody to act in this way in this situation with YES.
The same argumentation could be used for the Witness Protection Program, i.e. in exactly THIS situation, it is acceptable to lie.
Kant never places a value judgment on those actions which are immoral other than that they are immoral. He does not equate them with "badness" or any of the negative connotations (at least I did not pick up on it if it was to be inferred from tone) that we commonly associate with the word. He simply said that it is immoral. Not that we shouldn't necessarily be immoral in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteHis philosophy is also very individualistic in the sense that one has to be willing to accept one's actions as a universal maxim. If you can accept everyone acting in a certain manner, than it's moral.
As a side note, the idea of celebrating the death of anyone is absolutely abhorrent...
I think that subjected our actions to the categorical imperative, Kant is forcing us to look at them objectively. If every action has to have a maxim that you can wish to be universal than you must view your actions in an impersonal way. By separating our actions from the personal justifications and excuses that we would normally make for ourselves and viewing them as if they were anothers, we see more clearly whether or not they are truly just. It is easy to justify wrong actions by relying on the situation and claiming them necessary but when thinking as Kant does and viewing them as having universal maxims, it forces us to see them for what they are and admit they are wrong.
ReplyDelete