Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Formal Ethics
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: A Foundation of Moral Philosophy
The imperative duty to act is a categorical imperative because it is not subject to any condition like: “If you…” (in this case, it is hypothetical). It is formal because it does not express *what* you should do (be material). All it says is that, for a maxim of personal conduct, which itself is indeed material and particular, the “I can” be regarded as a moral duty requires that I might want to become a universal duty. That is, what I consider a must for me should be considered a duty for everyone. Kant offers different formulations of the categorical imperative:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, II)
“Act 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.” (ibid).
Practical Postulates of Reason
Kant does not disclaim the immortality of the soul, nor the existence of God. The only thing he says is that they are not objects of scientific knowledge, but that we must admit them as postulates. We distinguish between:
- Axioms: Self-evident propositions that do not need demonstration.
- Theorems: Propositions that are not obvious but can be demonstrated.
- Postulates: Propositions that are not obvious and cannot be demonstrated, but that it would be impossible not to admit them because of something.
According to Kant, metaphysical realities are not obvious, cannot be demonstrated, but it is possible to admit them for morality:
- Freedom: For autonomous morality to be possible (the duty to act out of respect), freedom is necessary. It is the basis of ethics and practical reason.
- Immortality of the soul: The will, in its moral actions, pursues a goal that it cannot achieve in this life; therefore, we assert that there is immortality. It serves as a prize or punishment for ethical behavior.
- God: In the world, being and duty are not identified. It is necessary to posit God as the being where those two realities are identified, where there is a perfect union between virtue and happiness. Attitudes of the judge and only man can access it through rational faith.
Precepts of Material Ethics
The precepts of material ethics are hypothetical rather than categorical. That is, they have no absolute validity but are conditioned to the concept that one has of “good” in particular: “I assume that I will be promoted only if I am diligent, rather than lazy, which is good.” Or, “I think that I should not take drugs if I think a moderate life is good.” This maxim is not worth considering as valid by that of “drugs, sex, and rock & roll” (you should not put this example in a selectivity exam, I say).
Materials are heteronomous ethics. The will is determined to work from outside its own right. That is, it does not determine its behavior independently, but to tilt the good or happiness.
Conclusion: Moral duties based on materials cannot be universal. They do not contain universal moral laws, but only maxims that cannot bind everyone.
Formal Ethics According to Kant
Since all material ethics are empirical (and therefore incapable of providing strictly universal principles), hypothetical (early value conditioning), and heteronomous (reason is determined from outside of itself), a strictly universal ethics should not be empirical (but a priori), or hypothetical (but categorical), or heteronomous (but autonomous: the subject has to identify himself in his act).
Ethics must be formal. That is, it should not tell us what to do, but it has to tell us how we should act at all times. Specifically, it tells us that we must act out of duty. Duty is, for Kant, the necessity of an action out of respect for the law and not done for any other reason. Kant distinguishes between:
- Moral actions: Taken out of duty.
- Immoral actions: Actions contrary to duty.
- Actions indifferent from a moral standpoint: Actions that are not contrary to duty but are motivated by other reasons of a utilitarian nature. For example, if a student studies to pass, their action is not immoral, nor moral, but indifferent. Instead, it becomes moral from the moment they are studying it as their duty. In the latter case, the action is not a means to an end but an end in itself.
You could say that what matters is not the action itself, but the motivation that determines it.