Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative

The question of duty and moral responsibility has been a relevant topic throughout the whole history of philosophy. Various thinkers propose diverse opinions on what a human must do in order to achieve happiness and fulfill their obligations. Duty is also the central point of deontological ethics, which focuses on the morality of actions regardless of their results and consequences (Ntui, 2020). In this sense, one should evaluate the value of actions based only on a set of rules that adhere to reason. One of the most notable followers of deontological ethics is Immanuel Kant, who proposed a number of fundamental theories concerning duty and moral responsibility. The current work discusses the categorical imperative formulated by the German philosopher and analyzes the real-world scenario from two philosophical perspectives.

Categorical Imperative and Moral Philosophy

Before analyzing the impact of categorical imperative on moral philosophy and notion of duty, it is essential to define the term. According to Kant, the categorical imperative is an absolute rule of what a human as a sentient being must do in all situations (Britannica, 2020). The terminology is defined by the following principle, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Britannica, 2020, para. 1). In other words, morality requires humans to make only those actions that could potentially become a universal law. Therefore, the consequences of this act do not matter in the scope of the philosophical tradition, but the action itself should be judged based on the maxima principle (Britannica, 2020). Ultimately, the categorical imperative proposes that all people must behave according to the universal laws that would benefit individuals and society.

Real-World Scenario

One of the real-world examples that various philosophical traditions analyze differently is the act of stealing. A theft is an action that is considered morally wrong by a large number of ethical and even religious postulates, including Kantian deontology. According to the German philosopher, stealing is always unethical regardless of circumstances. However, if theft is analyzed from a Utilitarian approach, for example, the results are different. Utilitarianism suggests that happiness is the ultimate goal of life, and some crimes can be justified from the point of morality (Tardi, 2020). Concerning thefts, ethics vastly depend on the situational context, and an act of stealing from utmost necessity is morally acceptable. For instance, if a father breaks into a global supermarket chain to get some food for his starving children, the happiness of this family from acquired goods will exceed the collateral damage to the company. Therefore, this theft is morally acceptable since it provides more happiness than unhappiness. As a result, unlike categorical imperative, Utilitarianism suggests different moral standards concerning stealing.

Conclusion and Personal Evaluation

The categorical imperative can be summarized as the necessity to behave in such a way that could become a universal law. From these considerations, theft is always unethical since it would be detrimental to individuals and society to normalize such maladaptive behavior. In other words, it is the moral obligation of every person to not steal from others. However, personally, I believe that the world is much more complex than Kantian deontology assumes, and every situation requires a unique approach. Concerning stealing, I would argue that not every theft should be categorically considered unethical since the situational context is always different. I believe that it is possible to justify the act of stealing if the crime is done of utmost necessity and the receiving side has not suffered from it. Therefore, stealing a piece of bread from a global food conglomerate with billions of revenue merely to survive another day is not fundamentally unethical. As a result, unlike the Kantian rule of the categorical imperative, I would argue that such an action should not be considered universally immoral.

References

Britannica. (2020). Categorical imperative. 

Ntui, V. (2020). Kant’s deontological ethics and its relevance to political development in the society. Albertine Journal of Philosophy, 4, 71-77.

Tardi, C. (2020). Utilitarianism. 

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 26). Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative. https://studycorgi.com/moral-responsibility-and-categorical-imperative/

Work Cited

"Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative." StudyCorgi, 26 Jan. 2023, studycorgi.com/moral-responsibility-and-categorical-imperative/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative'. 26 January.

1. StudyCorgi. "Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative." January 26, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-responsibility-and-categorical-imperative/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative." January 26, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-responsibility-and-categorical-imperative/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative." January 26, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/moral-responsibility-and-categorical-imperative/.

This paper, “Moral Responsibility and Categorical Imperative”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal. Please use the “Donate your paper” form to submit an essay.