Categorical Imperative Versus Formula of Humanity, Term Paper Example

Alice, the doctor, faces a situation, which lacks a coincise direction on the way forward on what she should do to do. In this context, she is faced with the option of helping her patient solve health complications through surgical processes. On the other hand, her patient opposes blood transfusion during surgery. Despite the fact that Alice says blood transfusion is unlikely, she acknowledge that situations stemming from uncertainty might demand blood transfusion. In the event that Joe, her patient, learns of this uncertainty, he will decline undergoing a surgery; hence endangering his health. Alice could make informed and rational decision by extrapolating principles of both the Formula of Humanity and that of Universal Law. From Kant’s perspective, I will simulate an argument deliberating about the validity and feasibility of deceiving Joe in order to accept the surgery process.

With respect to Universal Law, one should consider the role played by moral obligation in relation to nature. Moral principles usually influence individual’s actions and set commands without regard to natural feelings and intentions. In the line of moral and professional duty, one should appraise for the presence of good will in his or her actions. In addition, presence of good will may not guaranty goodness in all other aspects of nature. In this case, some things possess elements of good will in certain circumstances and not in all. What determines the value of goodwill in such cases is the moral worth of an action. In return, moral worth is derived from convictions adopted within an underlying maxim. Maxim contains components of form and matter. Matter represents the end purpose, which in this case of Alice, is to improve Joe’s health. On the other hand, the form represents the means through which one makes decisions and picks choices.

According to Universal Law, one ought not to perform an undertaking, unless in doing so, he or she appreciates that an underlying maxim becomes a universal law. This means that there are no rooms for adjustment upon adopting a maxim as a universal law. In whatever situation that calls for adoption of the maxim, one is obliged to do what the maxim stands for; regardless of self-interest. Maxims must undergo evaluative process to determine the Universal validity of applying to all rational beings. In this case, we will conduct the test to determine Alice’s universality of lying in order to promote her interest of saving Joe.

Alice maxim is to engage in lying actions in order to promote self-interests. In this regard, she has a dutiful interest to act morally according to the underlying good will of improving Joe’s health. In the event that this maxim gets to become a universal law, everyone would have to lie whenever the result would promote his or her individual interests. However, those interests have to fall within the aspect of morally considered goodwill. As stated earlier, a good will may fail to exercise goodness in all situations. What determines its value is the moral worth behind it, which in this case is to save Joe. Therefore, everyone should willingly adopt my maxim as a universal law whenever the resultant moral worth of their actions will fulfill a good-willed moral duty.

In the process, I acknowledge that widespread application of this maxim would compromise the value of honesty in creating trust among humanity. In this case, I will hold on to universality of the maxim, but create an excuse of exemption from the general rule of honesty. In this specific circumstance, the moral worth of lying to save Joe surpasses the moral worth of engaging in honesty promises. In this context, any rational being would be able to weigh between moral worth and conforming to universality of honesty. I believe cheating is worthwhile, and I expect any rational being in the same situation to cheat for executing a good will. Therefore, Alice should deceive Joe because it is possible for everyone in the same situation with a moral duty to cheat on his or her patient. This qualifies the maxim to conform to typical conditions of Universal Law.

Now, we acknowledge that certain circumstances of nature present satiations necessitating moral obligation. Kant postulate that moral obligation subscribe to elements of goodness. The only candidate that features in ascertaining moral worth is good will, regardless of the actions taken, which in this case of Alice includes deceiving a patient. In this regard, principles adopted in any given maxim must be objective and satisfy rational standards of good will. However, Universal Law demands that such maxim must fall under categorical imperative class. This means that the principles behind that maxim acts universally in relation to other maxims, including that of honesty. In order to establish a balance between universality and moral duty, we evaluate the intersection between principles of hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperative necessitates one to act on the goal of accomplishing a moral duty of good will. On the other hand, categorical imperative principles assert that once a maxim becomes a Universal Law, one ought to do it, regardless of personal interests.

Kant agrees that some circumstances requires absolute adherence to Universal maxims. However, one should act morally whenever there are conditions that could facilitate sustainability of rational nature. Maxims cannot be without contradictions just as a good will cannot be perfectly good in all circumstances. In this case, it would be rationally wrong to permanently unavailable to perform moral duties because universal laws give no alternative options. In the event that all humans cannot act on Alice’s maxim of deception for purposes of achieving a moral worth, then the main reason must be some custom features in her situation that allows the use of deception. In this context, it is worth acknowledging that some actions under hypothetical imperative are morally justified. This happens whenever maxim’s underlying principles are ones that all beings could collectively consider rational for a certain action. From this explanation of Universal Law, Alice can find rational insight on the most appropriate course of action to take.

Formula for Humanity emphasizes that one should always act towards humanity with regard to its end and not only as a means of justifying one’s actions. It allows individuals to treat humanity as a means, but at the same time paying attention to an end. However, Formula for Humanity does not allow one to treat an individual as a means and neglecting the duty to treat then as an end. When Alice considered deceiving Joe, he gets the patient to reason as if she is honesty. In this case, he neglects Joe’s rationality; hence this constitutes treating him as a means of carrying out her interests. In this context, others usually fail to treat persons as rational beings with ends whenever we manipulate their decision making process through misinformation and deception.

Despite this assertion by the Formula of Humanity, Kant says human beings have dignity, which cannot be equated with any price. This means that one should respect rational beings and never use them as a means, just as an end. In this care, morality would require treating persons with dignity. This includes according them free choice to make informed decisions. However, if one with a moral duty does not ever bother to help anyone, one must be seeing himself or herself as if they possess ends that are more important. In this case, Alice could be considering herself to have more ends that are important if she fails to help Joe concerning his health. As we know, all rational beings are equal; hence no one has got more important ends than another. In this case, one has to willingly protect and preserve rational nature at all expense. Alice will be striving to protect and preserve rational nature by deceiving Joe in order to improve his health condition.

Based on the two principles of relating to rational nature, one obtains the same answer regarding Alice’s case. Universal Law, especially categorical imperative, demands application of strict maxims at all cases, without consideration to moral duty and good will. On the other hand, Formula for humanity emphasize on treatment of persons as both means and ends at the same time. The two cases make use of the same fact that Alice is deceiving Joe in decisions regarding the imminent surgery. It does not consider the aspect that Alice will compromise Joe’s life if she tells him the truth. With respect to the two principles, Universal Law seems to facilitate development of a more coherent argument. It acknowledges existence of good will in performing moral duties. In addition, it appreciates that willing and morally dutiful beings would justify some actions if they collectively find rational principles behind those actions. On the other hand, Formula of Humanity fails to develop a good argument. This is because it only emphasize of the need to respect human dignity without allowing for adjustment depending on status of a specific situation.

Alice was dealing with an adult patient with moral and rational convictions concerning his aspects of humanity and dignity. In the case of a child, it would be morally dutiful to make the best decisions for him or her. In this case, the fact that the patient in subject is a minor makes significant difference on how the Universal Law would develop arguments. Moral obligation would command the doctor to make good will decisions on the child’s condition. It will consider the fact that a minor is not in a position to make rational and informed decisions in such a case. Therefore, I would be easier defending principles of the adopted maxim than in the case of deceiving and adult patient. However, Formula of Humanity would still hold that whether it is a child or an adult, treatment should be accorded to all with no impartiality. Therefore, it would not make significant difference in developing arguments.