Kant for Ci

1324 Words6 Pages
3. Explain why Kant claims that according to the Categorical Imperative, it is wrong to lie even to an ‘inquiring murderer’. Explain the concept of the Categorical Imperative, and how Kant’s answer is derived from it. Discuss whether you think the Categorical Imperative yields the correct moral answer in this case, giving reasons in defence of your view. Immanuel Kant was a deontologist who believed that reason was the final authority for morality, not the consequences of one’s actions as believed by the utilitarians. In other words, all actions would be undertaken with a sense of duty that has been dictated by reason. Kant recognized two types of imperatives by which we act: the Hypothetical Imperative, which stipulates an instrumental action to a goal/result/end; and the Categorical Imperative, which stipulates that the actions we take are irrespective of one’s desires/goals/ends but are bound by duty. The ‘Inquiring Murderer’ is one example of how Kant shows that we should use the Categorical Imperative (CI) to obtain an answer according to his version of morality. We must lie to be a moral person, sending our friend to their impending death. It accords with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without concerning ourselves with the consequences of their actions. Perhaps we can find a better way to use the CI in order to obtain a moral answer that we accord with our intuition. Firstly we need to break down Kant’s CI to understand how he uses it to determine moral law. The CI has several formula - the first being The Formula Of Universal Law (FUL): “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Wood 2002, xviii). The second being The Formula of Humanity as End in Itself (FH): “Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own
Open Document