taken from Kant’s 1795 Perpetual Peace, neatly sums up his philosophical position,

namely that people have moral duties which they must necessarily follow. Such duty is

revealed to us through reason, and is an unconditional obligation, which must be realised regardless

of an individual’s own will or desire. This position, reflecting Kant’s deontological

philosophy (which focuses on the morality of actions rather than their consequences),

contrasts with the prevailing utilitarian philosophy of the late 18th century (which

focuses on the morality and desirability of ends rather than means). It is categorical

in the sense that it applies universally and without conditions; it is an imperative in

that it is a command which has to be followed without question.

The Categorical Imperative Kant himself defined the categorical imperative

as a process by which you should "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at

the same time will that it should become a universal law." For example, you personally

must follow the categorical imperative “thou shalt not kill” if you believe that everybody

should follow this imperative. Since it is a duty, it is necessary to follow the categorical

imperative even when there seems to be no harm in not doing so. For example, if you

find yourself in a car, at a red stop light early in the morning when there are no other

cars on the road. Should you drive through, knowing that there is no chance you will cause

an accident to anyone? If you decide to do so (if you will this action), you are accepting

the universality of this action – namely that anyone can go through any red light at

any time they choose, regardless of the specific situation. It is this universality which differentiates

the categorical imperative from the Golden Rule, with which it is often confused. Whereas

the Golden Rule focuses on the self, the individual (i.e. you should treat others as you would

want yourself to be treated), the Categorical Imperative is universal.

Categorical Imperative vs Hypothetical Imperative Since the categorical imperative follows the

moral law, conditionality can never be attached to the categorical imperative. This said,

Kant was a realist: he does not think people should do what is impossible for them. Moral

statements are prescriptive, meaning that “I ought to do something” is the same

as “I can do something.” The categorical imperative thus contrasts with a hypothetical

imperative, which applies only conditionally. Whereas the categorical imperative would say

“Do X”, a hypothetical imperative would say “Do X in order to achieve Y.” If we

actually analyse the constituent parts of a hypothetical imperative, we need to ascertain,

firstly, whether “Y” is in fact a moral objective, secondly whether doing “X”

is moral as well and thirdly whether doing “X” will actually lead to “Y” in any

case.

Criticisms of the Categorical Imperative One of the strongest challenges to the categorical

imperative came from the French philosopher Bejamin Constant, who argued that since telling

the truth must be universal then it follows that one must, if asked, tell a known murderer

the whereabouts of his intended victim. Kant agreed with Constant’s position, but denied

that it weakened his premise, since moral actions do not derive their value from the

expected consequences.

Conclusion Kant argues that humans occupy a special place

in creation because of their reason. As such, this is a serious responsibility which should

not be taken lightly. Although the categorical imperative is often in battle with our natural

wants and desires, immortality stems from a violation of the categorical imperative,

and therefore it must be followed at all times. Morality comes from doing what is right, whatever

the consequences may be.