Critical Review of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

The Kingdom of Ends

The Kingdom of Ends is primarily based on Kant's second formulation of categorical imperatives, which states that "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end" (Abakare 79). The Kingdom of Ends comprises people who, by their free will, are willing to live under the rules of treating human beings with their human dignity, realizing that they are autonomous and require to be treated with worth. Therefore, in this union, human beings are treated with dignity, appreciating that they are ends in themselves. In this regard, people should not be treated as mere means. Rational human beings who follow moral laws are hence prohibited from exploiting people as a means of achieving their selfish goals.

This rationale hence shows that human beings are self-governed. They can make free decisions, set their goals, values, and interests, and craft strategies to pursue the dreams of their free will. For example, in the Kingdom of Ends, people should not manipulate or be manipulated by others (Aylsworth and Castro 12). Manipulation of people impairs their autonomy to make decisions of their own will; hence, it is morally unacceptable (Aylsworth and Castro 12). Therefore, the Kingdom of Ends appreciates people's humanity by recognizing that human beings are autonomous moral agents with goals, values, and interests to pursue.

However, Kant states that people can use people to achieve some goals. For example, employees work in an organization. The firms use the workers as a means of attaining their organizational goals. However, if the employees do this voluntarily, they are not used as "mere means." In summary, humans should treat others as ends in themselves, but not as mere means. People should know that human beings only exist for themselves. Hence, people should not be used as objects for achieving the interests of others.

How to Know Whether a Moral Precept Is a "Necessary Truth" from A Kantian Perspective

A necessary truth is defined as a proposition that holds in every possible world. Therefore, for a moral code to be regarded as a "necessary truth," it must be true to all people worldwide. This invokes the universality of the moral principle. Therefore, a moral precept is termed as true universally if it conforms to the Categorical Imperative's three formulations. These include universalizability, humanity, and autonomy.

The universalizability of a moral action means that if a deed has been evaluated using reason and has been found morally correct, then all people in the world can practice it (Eruka 1). Thus, other people can undertake it as a moral activity. The action should, therefore, not be treated as an exception for a particular person. On the other hand, a moral action has to have human consideration. The action must consider that human beings are not supposed to be exploited for personal gain. Therefore, moral action should treat human beings with dignity and respect. The last requirement for a moral code to be a universal truth is that it needs to rise from autonomy. This morality element means that the human being executing the moral precept should be acting on free will rather than being influenced by other people or events. Humans should have an intrinsic, independent desire to do good. Therefore, if a moral law follows these three formulations, it is a "Necessary Truth."

Strengths of Categorical Imperatives as a Tool for Making Moral Decisions

Kant's categorical imperative provides a moral code that holds universally. This means that it is non-discriminatory of people and their cultures. Kant's moral law applies to all people equally and with fairness. There are no people who are supposed to create exceptions in this moral concept. Additionally, the Categorical Imperative principle is clear and easy to understand and interpret. Kant's theory is based on a simple argument that entails people asking themselves whether they would like all other people to do what they have done or are about to do. If the answer to their question is "No," then they should refrain from doing the action, as it will be evaluated as not morally acceptable. Moreover, the categorical imperative is rational. Being rational means that emotions or other inclinations do not influence the moral decisions undertaken. Therefore, the morality perspective is objective, as opposed to being subjective. Additionally, the categorical imperative lays the foundation of respecting human life by treating people as ends in themselves. The UN Charter on Human Rights was adopted from an essay by Kant titled "Perpetual Peace" (Purkyně 121). Hence, it is a good tool for making moral decisions, as the code considers human rights.

Weaknesses of Categorical Imperatives as a Tool for Making Moral Decisions

People can exploit the universalizability principle of CI to justify any action undertaken by people. If a person uses reason and concludes that their action is morally permissible to be done by all other people, they can use their reason to justify their evil deeds. Additionally, the categorical imperative principle is discriminatory, as it does not apply to people with mental health diseases since they cannot practice sound reasoning abilities. Hence, the categorical imperative law assumes people with mental illnesses are not moral. Moreover, CI's moral law is inflexible. People are expected to follow the laws even when in dire situations. For example, when a murderer asks for your friend's location, and you know the location, CI states that you should tell the murderer your friend's exact location since you should not lie. In this scenario, it is sensible to break the rules, but CI does not accept it. The maxims, in this case, are hence hard to form.

Situation Ethics as A Problem-Solving Strategy

Situational ethics is a concept of morality where right or wrong actions are evaluated depending on the context. There exist no universal moral rules, as each case is termed independent with unique solutions. Therefore, situational ethics rejects preset decisions that guide moral obligations and advocates for flexible general principles. By being flexible, the moral agent can break ethical laws if doing so creates a greater moral good. Situational ethics contrasts Kant's Categorical Imperative, where moral decisions are guided by fixed moral codes that should be exercised constantly regardless of the situation. Thus, situational ethics is sensitive to context and makes moral decisions flexibly, depending on the current situation.

"Right versus Right"

In this discussion, Weston discusses the conflict of values and morals. He addresses competing moral actions to be viewed from the perspective of competing goods. In this case, each moral side should be interrogated on what is right about it. Instead of attacking an action by focusing on its weak points, look for the action's strong points. Assume that it has some and look for them (Weston 49). Therefore, people should try to understand why moral arguments make sense to others. The right versus right perspective of morality appreciates that no human beings have a monopoly on morality; hence, they do not have the right to term actions as absolute rights or wrongs. Situational ethics is a "right versus right" moral code, as people can break their own moral laws to accommodate the immediate context.

            In conclusion, the categorical imperative principle is anchored on moral commands that people have no choice but to follow. These moral codes are universal to everyone, driven by pure reason, and are executed with fairness and equity. Additionally, CI consists of three formulations that characterize moral deeds. They include universalizability, humanity, and autonomy. According to the categorical imperative, human beings are supposed to treat each other with dignity, and their deeds must act as a precedent to be done universally. Additionally, the moral obligation of people should rise from free will. Despite CI being driven by logic, it has some weaknesses, such as discrimination against the mentally ill and rigidity in its application. However, Weston proposes that fixed rules should not define morality, but ethics should be evaluated according to context. I believe that situational ethics is better than categorical imperatives since we live in a diverse world. Hence, what applies to morals in one group of people might not hold for another group practicing a different culture.