Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative: what is it?

Ethics and morals are elements that profoundly influence our behavior, and on which the philosophy and the different sciences that analyze human behavior have tried to reflect and investigate. We limit our behavior in pursuit of the possibility of being able to live with others. Why do we act like we act?

There are multiple lines of philosophical thought that have raised questions about these issues and that have explored the concepts developed by such an explanation. One of them is that of the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant, which we are going to talk about in this article.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy alike?"

Kantian morality

Before seeing what the categorical imperative is, it is necessary to make a brief comment on some of the aspects of Kant's conception of morality. Immanuel Kant was a theologian deeply concerned with this issue, at a time of great contrasts between ideological currents with different points of view regarding the way to behave and direct the conduct.

The author he considered morality as a rational element, far from empirical elements and based on a universal ethics. For Kant, the moral act is the one that is carried out as a duty, as an end in itself: the moral act is one in which one acts based on reason, not on self-love or interest. On the contrary, those that are carried out by chance, with interest or as a means to reach or avoid other elements will not be such.

Moral performance is based on goodwill. The act must be seen in itself in its subjective sense to be valued as moral or immoral. The moral act seeks the happiness of others, which in turn allows its own by being part of humanity, instead of pretending to satisfy desires or flee from pain and suffering. To be moral it is necessary to be free, in a sense that Kant relates to the possibility of transcending one's own desires and imperatives to achieve transcendence.

With regard to concepts such as good and evil, widely linked to morality, Kant considers that the acts are not good or bad in themselves but that it depends on the subject that leads them to cape. In fact, the moral is not the act itself but the purpose behind it: he who deviates from the moral laws that govern him will be bad, subordinating his universal moral motivations to those of personal interest and his own sensitivity, while the good is one who follows morality as a universal law in his life and on the basis of it carries out and fulfills his wishes based on said moral. A core concept in his concept of morality is the idea of ​​the categorical imperative.

• You may be interested: "What is morality? Discovering the development of ethics in childhood"

Kant's idea of ​​the categorical imperative

All of us at some point have done or tried to do the right thing, or have felt bad about not doing it. Kant's concept of the categorical imperative is deeply linked to this fact.

A categorical imperative is understood to be the act or proposition that is carried out because it is considered necessary, without there being any other reason to be carried out than said consideration. They would be the constructions that are made in the form of a "must", without being conditioned by any other consideration, and they would be universal and applicable at any time or situation. The imperative is an end in itself and not a means to achieve a certain result. For example, we can generally say "I must tell the truth", "the human being must be supportive", "I must help another when they are having a bad time" or "we must respect others.

The categorical imperative does not have to have an additive meaning, but it can also be restrictive. That is, it is not just about us doing something, but it can also be based on not doing it or not doing it. For example, most people do not steal or harm others, considering such action something negative per se.

The categorical imperative it is an eminently rational construct, which aims to treat humanity (understood as a quality) as an end and not as a means to achieve something. However, these are difficult imperatives to see in real life in this sense, since we are also very subject to our wishes and guide our actions based on them.

Categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative

The notion of categorical imperative is based mainly on doing something for the sake of doing it, the act itself being an end and without conditions. However, although we can find some exponents of categorical imperative in real life, Most of our actions are motivated by aspects other than the fact of do them.

For example, we study to pass an exam or we go shopping to eat. I go to class to learn, I work to fulfill my vocation and / or get a salary, or we exercise to relax or get into good physical shape.

We are talking about what the same author would consider a hypothetical imperative, a conditional requirement that is used as a means to an end. It is a proposition not universal but relative to the situation we are facing, and which is is the most common type of imperative even when we think we are doing it as an end in Yes.

It must be borne in mind that many of the imperatives that govern us can be categorical or hypothetical depending on how they are raised. I can not steal because it seems wrong to me or I can not steal because I am afraid that they will catch me and take me to jail. In this sense, it is not the action itself but the presence or absence of a motive beyond morality that leads to action that will generate one type of imperative or another.

• You may be interested: "The utilitarian theory of John Stuart Mill"

Kantian formulations

Throughout his work, Kant generates different formulations that summarize the moral mandate behind the categorical imperative. Specifically, five major complementary and linked formulas stand out. They are based on the existence of maxims that guide our behavior, these being subjective when they are only valid for the will of who owns them or objective if they are valid for both oneself and others, having the same value for all regardless of who perform. The formulations in question are as follows.

• Universal law formula: "Work only according to a maxim such that you can want at the same time that it becomes universal law."
• Formula of the law of nature: “Act as if the maxim of your action should become, by your will, the universal law of nature.
• Formula of the end in itself: "Work in such a way that you use humanity, both in your person and in the person of any other, always with the end at the same time and never only as a means"
• Autonomy formula: "Act as if by means of your maxims you were always a legislating member of a universal kingdom of ends."

In conclusion, these formulas propose that we act on the basis of universal moral values ​​or that we consider rationally that we should all follow, self-imposed for our own reason and considering these values ​​an end in itself. Following these maxims we would act based on our categorical imperatives, seeking the happiness of others and acting morally, in such a way that we would also live doing what is right and obtaining gratification from this fact.

Bibliographic references

• Echegoyen, J. (1996). History of Philosophy. Volume 2: Medieval and Modern Philosophy. Editorial Edinumen
• Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Madrid. Editorial Alliance (Original of 1785).
• Paton, H.J. (1948). Categorical Imperative: A study in Kant’s moral philosophy. Chicago University of Chicago Press.