The Categorical Imperative

[McLeft]

No matter how much I read about it, how much I study it, I still don't understand it, I'd like to know what it is and what it does.

Thanks.

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:57 PM
No matter how much I read about it, how much I study it, I still don't understand it, I'd like to know what it is and what it does.

Thanks.
It's a phrase used by Kant in his book 'Critique of Judgment.' It means deciding how to behave by imagining how the world would be if that behavior were completely general. for example, the way you know that you shouldn't tell a lie is because you realize that the world would be a mess if everyone were lying all the time.

[Zero]

What mikelepore said.

It's taking a single theory and applying it in the same mannor to everything in/out of life reguardless.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:51 AM
for example, the way you know that you shouldn't tell a lie is because you realize that the world would be a mess if everyone were lying all the time.
Incredible! An a priori that actually works! And I always thought Kant's ethical doctrine was crap!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by lovechild of Kahlo and Trotsky+Jun 11 2006, 02:22 PM--> (lovechild of Kahlo and Trotsky @ Jun 11 2006, 02:22 PM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 07:51 AM
for example, the way you know that you shouldn't tell a lie is because you realize that the world would be a mess if everyone were lying all the time.
Incredible! An a priori that actually works! And I always thought Kant's ethical doctrine was crap! [/b]
Unfortunately, Universalisabilty doesn't work when examined.

What Kant meant was, if you decided to lie, you advocate that everyone should, morally, have to lie in those circumstances to. But "those circumstances" are so micro-specific, they'll never reoccur for anyone ever again.

If your having trouble understanding the Catagorical Imperative you should probably read about the Hypothetical Imperatice first.

[mikelepore]

I'm not so sure about the circumstances part of what you said. It looks to me that Kant held that the circumstances don't matter at all. I remember him writing that it's wrong to lie in general, therefore it's also wrong to lie a attacker to save your life. Of course, Marxists have to reject this because Marxism is based on realizing that quantity turning into quality, otherwise we couldn't justify taking away the possessions of the ruling class without also justifying taking away the possessions of the poor. Any theory that says a rule is a rule, period, must be reactionary.

Seems to me that Kant was trying to take his argument from his third Critique that moral rules come from God, and somehow make this consistent with is argument from his first Critique that metaphysics is unknowable and all we can know is the empirical. So the fact that the world would be unreasonable if everyone were lying all the time is like an empirical datum that is also a message sent by God to us that lying is wrong.

[mikelepore]

As for the "imperative" part of the phrase "categorical imperative" -- this is because Kant was arguing that following certain rules is a matter of "duty" (whatever word he used in German, every translator renders it as "duty"). That is, we're not supposed to consider whether it benefits us somehow to do the right thing; we're supposed to do the right thing regardless of how we might be benefited by one choice or the other.

This has both a progressive aspect and a reactionary aspect.

The progressive aspect is that we can show how the capitalist class is reckless in that it ignores its own pronouncements when it's profitable, like it's all right to kill when it's "necessary" in order to conquer foreign markets.

But the reactionary aspect is seen when we realize that practical benefits do matter -- a social revolution will benefit the majority, and only inconvenience the few, and therefore it's justified. (Kant said that all revolutions and rebellions whatsoever are immoral. He made this perfectly clear in 'Critique of Judgment'.)

[hoopla]

What Kant meant was, if you decided to lie, you advocate that everyone should, morally, have to lie in those circumstances to. But "those circumstances" are so micro-specific, they'll never reoccur for anyone ever again.
I am fairly sure this would not be a probelm for Kant.

To will something as a law, all you need to be able to do is concieve of the situation. Not for the action to actually occur.

What is the proof for the categorical imperative, though?

[bezdomni]

I don't think there is "proof" of the categorical imperative...it's really just a suggestion as to how you should live your life.

As far as I'm aware, Kant never said people inherently act in that manner. I'm not a super-expert on Kant, nor do I pretend to be...but the categorical imperative is just "advice".

[hoopla]

Bah!

[hoopla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:35 AM
I don't think there is "proof" of the categorical imperative...it's really just a suggestion as to how you should live your life.

As far as I'm aware, Kant never said people inherently act in that manner. I'm not a super-expert on Kant, nor do I pretend to be...but the categorical imperative is just "advice".
Does anyone know better?
As far as I'm aware, Kant never said people inherently act in that manneErm, it would not have to be the case that people act in that manner, only that they have an obligation to do so.

I guess a question that interests me, is how does obligation arise, and I guessed that Kant would attempt to explain this.

Without proof that his philosophy is true, or a reasoned arguemnt for an universal obligation to accept it, he does not begin to answer my question. I think.