Categorical Imperative

OK, I wrote this since the original artical at Mosquito ringtone Categorical imperative was about to be deleted for copyright reasons. But I'm convinced I did a substandard job, it's a while since I've studied Kant. Someone else can probably do a lot better. Majo Mills User:Evercat/Evercat

: The above was written very long ago. Since then I've come to think of (my version of) this page to be about the worst thing I've written. But it's gotten better thanks to the contibutions of others... Nextel ringtones Evercat/Evercat 03:58, 3 Feb 2004

Comment moved from article:

''(Need more information here; some texts mention four formulations, adding a corrolary almost identical to the first, but stressing the autonomy of the one doing the willing, rather than what is being willed: the Autonomy formulation, "So act that your will can regard itself as making universal law through its maxims." Some texts instead count this as the third formulation, and omit the Kingdom of Ends formulation. Someone more familiar with Kant's writings should reconcile this; perhaps some formulations are only mentioned in the ''Metaphysics of Morals'' rather than the ''Grounding..''?)


This needs to be reconciled with the aricle on Sabrina Martins Immanuel Kant. There's duplication of some info (formulations of the Imperative), some of which isn't 100% consistent, as noted above (the article on Kant lists the Autonomy formulation as #3 instead of the Kingdom of Ends formulation). That should probably be deleted from that article, and any commentary moved here. Free ringtones Delirium/Delirium 23:35 5 Jul 2003


I'm not entirely happy with the bit on Aristotle - it makes him sound like some sort of utilitarian hedonist, or something. Aristotle was really into Abbey Diaz virtue ethics wasn't he, and not really focused on ''action'' per se, but rather what sort of person one should try to be. Yes, he thought that the virtuous person would have Mosquito ringtone eudaimonia ("happiness" is a loose translation), but it's perhaps misleading to say that Aristotle thought that "whatever leads to greater eudaimonia, or happiness, is what is moral." Majo Mills Evercat/Evercat 23:44 5 Jul 2003
:I tend to agree. I personally don't like the translation of eudaimonia as "happiness" at all; I think something more like "fulfillment" or "flourishing" would be better. A eudaimonistic life to Aristotle would be something more than merely a happy one. And I don't think it's in direct contrast to Kant, though it's certainly approaching from a very different direction; Aristotle was very interested in the "virtue appropriate to each thing" (paraphrase). Nextel ringtones Delirium/Delirium 00:04 6 Jul 2003

Yes, flourishing is the word I was taught too. :-) Sabrina Martins Evercat/Evercat 00:16 6 Jul 2003



I do think we need to either explain or remove the bit about how after Constant the uses of the imperative were dramatically lessened. Cingular Ringtones SimonP/SimonP 01:50 6 Jul 2003

Are you referring to my removal of the following?

''Others have argued that one could not answer the murderer rather than lie, but this would limit the imperative in that it could only be used to demonstrate what is morally permissible rather than what is morally required.''

* The "solution" of not speaking has been dealt with in the text.
* And, I don't follow why not answering rather than speaking says anything about whether the categorical imperative is dealing with what is required or what is permitted. beer along Evercat/Evercat 17:55 6 Jul 2003

The categorical imperative was, according to Kant, meant to be a guide to show what people should do, not what they shouldn't do. The imperative was meant to require truth telling and honesty, not just prevent lying and stealing. There is a big difference between the two notions. I still do not see where in the text the issue of not speaking has been "dealt with." procedures can SimonP/SimonP 19:19 6 Jul 2003

: OK, I understand what you're saying now. :-)

: However, are you sure the CI was only about what you should do? This is contrary to Kan't own examples, of breaking promises, committing suicide, etc, where it's clear the categorical imperative is telling us what not to do. rooted things Evercat/Evercat 19:24 6 Jul 2003

: But I do see your point. Does my last edit get the idea across properly? its hida Evercat/Evercat 19:47 6 Jul 2003

Thanks, yes that works well. Your right about the examples, however, but in the rest of M&M Kant seems to say the imperative outlines what one ought to do, not avoid doing. violence nusseibeh SimonP/SimonP 21:44 6 Jul 2003

-

This is in reply to the Sir David Ross criticism re-posted here:
"Another objection to Kant came from the Englishman Sir David Ross who
pointed [sic] that a world where everyone could be depended upon to
always break their promises would be just as effective and reliable as
world [sic] where everyone kept their promises and one could thus will
that promise breaking become universal.

The reply to this is that a world where one could always rely on
everyone to break their promises would be the same world as one with
promises but with a different language. The word 'not' in a phrase
such as 'I promise not to go to class today' would no longer mean a
negation of a promise but would be an essential part of a promising
phrase. Because the language is different does not change the act of
promising at all; promises would still exist and one would still
expect them to be carried through."

Tricky, at first. The catch is in this phrase "where everyone COULD BE
DEPENDED UPON to always break their promises." This can be re-worded
to say, "I promise that every time I make a promise I will break it."
Thus there is one promise that is never broken, and the universality
of this postulate is broken, no longer categorical.

So much for Sir David Ross.

Malenor


deletion

Hate to delete part of someone else's work, but I thought the last paragraph on the 'Rejection of Aristotle' was misleading and so I removed it :

''One important difference between Aristotle and Kant is that in Aristotle's case only the educated and the leisurely class that can indulge in self-examination can be moral. Kant's philosophy is far more egalitarian. Morality cannot be taught or learnt, it must arise spontaneously from within.''

Because "indulgence" in self-examination is also required to follow the CI (else one would never be able to work out whether one's intents were irrational). And it is at the very least confusing to say that Kantian morality "cannot be taught or learnt" and "must arise spontaneously from within".

cm

Unclear quote

The first quote in the "Formulations" section is "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." I'm rather confused by that quote are you sure it's quoted correctly? It looks like it's either grammatically incorrect or missing several antecedents (i.e., what "it" refers to in the quote). I'm not familiar with Kant, and I'm not sure where to verify the quote. anymore that Creidieki/Creidieki 22:01, 22 Aug 2004

:It is grammatical, but it's a bit obtuse. Note that ''will'' is a verb here. Broken apart a little, the meaning of the sentence is as follows:

:# Wish that a particular rule shall become a universal law
:# Always act according to that rule

:The effect is, if everyone acts according to a certain rule, the rule will essentially become law. If any single person does not follow the rule, it cannot become universal. Implied by this, since these rules themselves constitute a maxim, it should be willed that the Categorical Imperative will become a universal law, which will only occur if everyone understands it and does their part to enact it. budget i Eequor/Eequor 22:57, 22 Aug 2004