Hi everyone!
In this post, I would like to introduce you to the central concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant: the categorical imperative.
I believe the best way of doing this would be to analyze the excerpt below from Kant's influential book "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals":
"Now there follows incontestably from this that every rational being as an end in himself must be able to regard himself with reference to all laws to which he may be subject as being at the same time the legislator of universal law, for just this very fitness of his maxims for the legislation of universal law distinguishes him as an end in himself." (Hackett 43).
The Dual Role of Rational Beings as the Emperors and the Citizens of the Universe
Immanuel Kant’s purpose for writing the "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" is to develop the ultimate principle of morality, which can be summarized through the concept of the categorical imperative: take those actions the subjective principle of which, according to your will, should become a universal law. The categorical imperative, in other words, is the recipe for reconciling our subjective motives and our objective moral principles. To create a valid recipe of this kind, Kant argues that we should be careful about choosing the correct actions to study. From a Kantian perspective, only the study of actions that can be formulated through synthetic (a priori) prepositions is going to lead to a valid ultimate principle of morality. A preposition, which consists of a subject and predicate, is synthetic only if its predicate is not already encompassed by its subject in any way. For example, “Many books are blue.” is a synthetic judgement, since books are not necessarily blue. Synthetic judgements can be verified without making a reference to experiences. The independence of the verification of synthetic judgements from experiences connects back to Kant’s main purpose: to construct a valid universal principle of morality that can hold under all circumstances by the guiding of our own reason. Since Kant is looking for an ultimately valid principle of morality, he does not want confounding factors such as circumstances associated with experiences to contaminate his argumentations that will eventually lead to a concept of morality able to test all kinds of judgements. This is similar to the willingness of a scientist to collect simple but noiseless data to develop a theory that can later be used to test more complex physical phenomena.
The stability and consistency of Kant’s above-mentioned approach for establishing moral principles of universal validity is ensured by the concept of the good will. According to Kant, the good will is the only thing that is good without any conditions. This concept becomes relevant when one attempts to evaluate the morality of different actions. Since we cannot control the consequences of our actions and these are usually dependent on the circumstances, how moral a certain action is should not be estimated through its consequences. Instead, the will setting an action in motion should therefore be the reference for determining its morality and this will must also be good not through the intention or any causal relationship behind it, it must be good for the sake of being good. Since, as rational beings, we are both capable of taking actions based on free will and susceptible to our desires, we need a sense of duty and our will should harmonize with this sense of duty. Following a duty should not be motivated by anything else other than the respect for the moral law. At this point, we can start putting the passage in question into perspective by focusing on the definition for a rational being. Kant makes the distinction between rational beings and the nature by stating that the first “sets itself an end”1. The notion of a rational being as an end in itself is central to Kant’s formulation of a universal moral law. This means that a rational being exists in its own right, not because of a result or an origin of a causal relationship leading to another end, and it is itself the purpose of its actions. Thus, its end should undoubtedly be nothing but itself. This takes us back to the important concept of the good will. Only a rational being, i.e. a being existing as an end in itself, can be the host of a good will, which is the will not subject to any conditions, and only through the good will, actions that are truly in compliance with moral laws can be generated.
The role of a rational being as someone who should both obey and make moral laws, that is pointed out in the passage, is profound to Kant’s concept of the categorical imperative. One of the implications of this dual role is that the maxims, i.e. subjective principles, of a rational being can now be tested by a thought experiment. Since the lawmaker is simultaneously the one who is influenced by those laws, one can ask: If a certain maxim was a universal law, would it contradict itself? For example, when a maxim of a rational being involves using other rational beings as means to certain ends, this maxim would fail the above-mentioned thought experiment. For failing to appreciate rational beings as ends in themselves, this subjective principle cannot be reconciled with the objective principles necessary to become a universal law. Assuming that it could become a universal law, it would conflict with the fact that rational beings are ends in themselves. It would in this case necessitate the conclusion that rational beings are not rational beings, which would consequently mean that the good will does not exist and without the concept of an unreservedly good will, we cannot talk about the concept of morality, by Kantian definition. Thus, the perspective in which a rational being is both the lawmaker and the resident of the universe creates guiding limits for the maxims of a rational being, that is, it allows it to use only the means other than the other rational beings themselves for their ends. Interestingly, as we can see now based on our discussions so far, this dual role perspective is precisely what declares rational beings distinctive as beings that are ends in themselves, because the dual role perspective leads to contradictions if rational beings are regarded as means to other ends. Therefore, the mere concept of seeing rational beings both as the emperor and the citizens of the “kingdom of ends”1, i.e. community of rational beings, fortifies the categorical imperative by verifying that they should be seeking to act in compliance with the maxims that could potentially be universal laws. It is also important to point out that a rational being can achieve the autonomy only by following the categorical imperative, because freedom in a Kantian sense means to make laws for your own will.
The given passage emphasizes the importance of considering rational beings as the ones who both make the laws and obey the laws, and it points out that this consideration concurrently establishes them as beings who are themselves the grounds for their undertakings, i.e. ends in themselves. By indicating the state of rational beings as the creator of the laws they are subject to, it implies that the concept of the categorical imperative is what liberates them as beings in their own right, with the capacity of choosing to take moral actions.
By stochasticmind
Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about my post!
Sources
1 - Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals: With on a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Hackett Publishing, 1993.