The Categorical Imperative, Essay Example

More often, in the daily live routine, one does things that are either right or wrong. This calls for the morality and ethical issues in the decision making of one’s actions. The human conducts explain the existence or non-existence of morals. To inject morals into the deeds, one should subject the reason behind an act, and determine if it is quite acceptable or applicable universally. Immanuel Kant is so particular when it comes to moral actions. He explains the moral worth of an action not determined by its outcome or rather consequences, but the reason behind that called for action. This paper brings in a reflective essay on the “Categorical Imperative” by Immanuel Kant.

Kant takes morality as an unconditional ought, in that one performs an action without considering whatever that is to happen. The positive or negative reward behind the action not considered. A moral action ought to be binding to everyone, in that; it is the only action to take in a particular situation. By referring to a “categorical imperative”, Kant holds that the moral principles should be a command within us. An imperative “commands” people to perform their will in a particular manner. The categorical definition describes the binding of people to exercising a virtue unconditionally. It enhances the possession of rational wills that do not refer to the final product but a matter of exercising etiquette. There is no use of “if”, i.e. if I do this, I get that. It focuses one having it in mind that I ought to act in a given manner because it is morally right, and because it is universally acceptable as a law.

Actions like politeness may enable one to have some favors at the end, but this end is not the point of interest in categorical imperative. It should be an automatic moral action out of possessing a rational will. It employs practical reasoning that emphasizes on the motives of acting polite and not the end of gaining favors. This is unlike the hypothetical imperative that focuses on the achievement of given ends. The hypothetical imperative asserts that; if you want to achieve this and that, you should act in a particular manner. With this approach, people could end up doing immoral things with the aim of attaining a given goal. Categorical imperative calls for actions that have admirable motives and acts one can do and desire for it to be a universal law.

A categorical imperative action applies equally to every person. When one acts in a morally upright manner, he /she consider the surrounding people to be the agents or audience, who ought to treating right. They ought to receive treatment to their advantage, and not to self-interests. In general, moral actions should in no way prevent other parties from acting with respect to the moral laws.

In most countries, there exist laws that distinguish right from wrong. Whereas the rights in a law define the moral behaviors, this does not necessarily imply categorical imperative morals. Categorical imperative actions employ freedom and autonomy. The person acts and dictates his / her inner self with the passion and the impulse to act right, without necessarily waiting for the lawful rules to take action. Kant further describes categorical imperative as the free will and determination to act morally right. Despite the present physical laws, there exists the willingness in one self to act right. A morally upright person acts right by default without necessarily bring subjected to laws, rules and regulations.

The measure of the moral worth of an action applies in the categorical imperative. The reason behind an act is what describes the morality and the worth of an action. In being a rational being, ones actions one can easily judge his/ her actions. The grounds under which the judgments made more often determined by the major existing theories as well as under the judgment of the law of God. Kant’s comparative imperative approach more grounded on God’s law and a sovereign monarch. He grounds morality to actions that call for willingness and responsibility for under a compassionate reason. Morally upright persons act autonomously with respect to a law that subjects us to be accountable for our own actions. The commandments of God form the law that subjects believers to follow, for example, one breaks a commandment upon lying. Kant also has it that it is not morally right to lie, because lying not allowed universally. Despite that some difficult situations could call for a lie, we ought to have full accountability for the wrong associated with the motive of lying.

In summary, Immanuel Kant has a strong feeling towards morality. Any action that is not morality right shows arrogance, paternalistic and unnecessary assumptions. People should adapt identities and learn to respect other’s identities in a rational manner, and at the same time show humanity. Every one of us ought to be responsible of our own actions.