Categorical Imperative

Notes

Claim

The categorical imperative claims that one should follow the behavior that would still be logical if it was done by all. As all beings share the capacity to logic, our actions should take the perspective of other agents in mind, assuming they would reach similar conclusions Zooming out gains perspective through mental distance.

Explanation

Usually this rule helps us avoid acting like a Some exploit the altruism of others, because we realize that being a free rider is something that can only be done because others are not acting that way.

Why it matters

Examples

For example, if you lie in a world where most people tell the truth, it might still be a viable option, but if everyone would have lied no one would trust anyone which makes lies irrelevant as they are perceived as lies regardless if they are true.

Supporters

Opposers

However, the categorical imperative lies on the same shaky foundations as all the "logical" based morality views. First, it denies Diversity of perspectives strengthens decision-making and understanding, it assumes that all people will come to the same conclusion, despite the fact that people differ greatly from one another in terms of preferences, which changes the answer of their logical calculation. Second, it lacks force behind it. The fact that I know that my behavior is not sustainable or scailable doesn't lead me to act differently. I might reach the conclusion of "as long as others are trustworthy, I could still lie" Intelligence is not morality.

Open questions

Visual

Overview

🔼Topic:: Ethical Frameworks (Metaethics) ↩️Origin:: Immanuel Kant (philosopher) 🔗Link::