The Categorical Imperative
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:35 pm
Our resident Kantian, RT, will be able to help me out with this. But anyone’s help is appreciated. Immanuel Kant stated his Categorical Imperative as follows: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." This is Kant’s first formulation; there were two that followed as refinements on the first. I know this principle is deep and complicated philosophically. But it also appears to have an immediate appeal, and some of that has seemed to me due to its relation to the Golden Rule (do to others as you have them do to you). Is this too naïve a view? I ask because Jonathan Haidt tells us that in formulating this mandate, Kant was showing that above all he was a systematizer, which Haidt says has to mean that he was low on empathizing (it’s like a see-saw, supposedly). But I see his Imperative as being built on the Golden Rule, which is all about empathy. Some would say the Imperative is about justice, but it seems more broadly concerned with always treating others humanely.
The next formulation of the imperative brings empathy more into play:
“At in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
And the third is:
“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
Well, in any case, it's beautiful philosophy. I think Haidt misfires here.
The next formulation of the imperative brings empathy more into play:
“At in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
And the third is:
“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”
Well, in any case, it's beautiful philosophy. I think Haidt misfires here.