I just can’t stop thinking about how little it does in terms of (1) helping one determine the correct course of action (i.e. the moral action to take) and (2) solving moral dilemmas (which are the trickiest and most difficult of moral quandaries to deal with)
Obviously, the first claim is more controversial than the second. You might say "wtf? Kant obviously helps us figure out what actions are moral and immoral. Have you even done the reading? Gah. Go read a book, hippie."
Whoa there partner.
What I mean by the first is this: the Categorical Imperative offers a sound, logical justification for why certain actions are moral or immoral. But it does little to help us discover which actions are moral and immoral.
How many of us needed to apply the Categorical Imperative to determine that stealing, lying, cheating, murder, arson, etc. are immoral actions?
Kant’s Categorical Imperative isn’t exactly enlightening in this regard. For whatever reason we naturally find certain actions immoral (whether we are taught these in society, whether they are engrained in us naturally, etc.) The Categorical Imperative tells us why it’s immoral. In that regard, Kant’s moral rule is extremely useful. But it doesn’t necessarily guide conduct…
Secondly, the Categorical Imperative doesn’t help us when we are confronted with moral dilemmas. (We discussed this a bit in class on Tuesday) The Trolley problem is a perfect example of how the Categorical Imperative fails to help us determine the correct course of action in these difficult circumstances. When there are competing moral principles or when there is no correct moral action, the Categorical Imperative seems to leave us paralyzed. Its rigidity doesn’t allow us to confront these conundrums effectively (or efficiently).
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, doesn’t have this fatal flaw. Mill’s solution is a clear one. Utilitarianism helps us deal with moral dilemmas AND determine the right-ness (or wrongness of actions based on their consequences. It’s a results based theory that focuses on the practical impact of one’s actions on other people. It’s based on results rather than one’s intentions or motivations, which can be difficult to understand. So Mill, unlike Kant, has a clear answer to the Trolley Problem.
I want to be clear: I am not remotely saying that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is useless or misguided. I think it’s an ingenious method and an interesting exercise. I just think that its applicability is limited. It's rigidity is both its greatest strength and its biggest weakness
So take that, Kant…
I have to say that I agree with this blog. When I first read Kant I was all for his deontological view and immediately I began to think of myself as a Kantian. However, after reading Mill’s, Utilitarianism and this blog, I too can’t help but rethink my decision and question Kant’s Categorical Imperative. I agree that it seems to be incomplete. Yes, it tells us why something is immoral but it does very little to help us figure out what that something could be. By that, I mean it is very vague. Thomas is right, using the Categorical Imperative in the Trolley problem would make it nearly impossible to make a moral decision. So not that Mill is the better choice, but his belief in utilitarianism makes, making moral dilemma decisions a lot easier. Overall I would say that Mill’s way is simpler. With Kant you must think thru multiple “answers” and evaluate each possibility. Where as with Mill and utilitarianism the answer can be quickly determined, and it too will be morally right because it will be for the good of the whole. So after this evaluation maybe I’m not a Kantian anymore.
ReplyDelete