The categorical imperative and its three formulations

The categorical imperative: An action which is good in itself

Moral laws should be followed categorically, without exception, regardless of the outcome.

For an action to be good in itself it has to follow these three formulations:

1. The formula of the universal law of nature

• Our moral rules should be capable of being universal, they should be rules that could apply to everyone, regardless of the situation.
• To rationalize whether your action would be moral according to this formulation of the categorical imperative you should ask yourself: Would it make sense if everybody in the world always acted in this way? If the answer to this question is no, then the act is immoral.

2. The formula of the end in itself

• People should not use others as a means to an end.
• People should be treated respectfully and not as tools for their own gain.
• To rationalize whether your action would be moral according to this formulation of the categorical imperative you should ask yourself: "Am I exploiting/using anybody else to achieve my goal?" If the answer is yes, then the act is immoral.

3. The formula of the kingdom of ends

• People should act as if their behaviour were setting laws in an ideal kingdom.
• People should always behave as though their actions could be law in an ideal society of rational people.
• To rationalize whether your action would be moral according to this formulation of the categorical imperative you should ask yourself: "Would it make sense if this action was the law?" If the answer is no, then the act is immoral.

• Someone who wants to commit suicide is acting immorally as this cannot be universalised.
• Breaking a promise to repay borrowed money would be immoral as we can see that the borrower treats the money of others, as well as their trust, as a means for escaping his situation, treating someone else as a means to an end. This would be an immoral action as the borrower is not treating the lender with respect this is not the way a reasoned and developed society should function.

Strengths of applying the Categorical Imperative to moral decisions

• The absolutist nature of the ethic means that what it says will never change, this provides fairness and clarity to moral decision making that is not found with teleological approaches.
• Kant states we should not treat people as "an end in themselves" and so Kantian ethics puts everyone on equal ground taking the egalitarian view.
• Through his formulas within the categorical imperative, Kant provides a response to those who criticize his ethics by claiming it is too abstract, he has set clear parameters for what constitutes a moral act.

Weaknesses of applying the Categorical Imperative to moral decisions

• Due to its absolutist nature, Kantian ethics offers no flexibility. It doesn't regard the situation of any action, which is arguably not helpful or useful in actual life decisions.
• It is impractical ethics for people to use in the modern day.
• Bernard Williams: We cannot adopt an impersonal perspective (the perspective of the categorical imperative), because by doing so we lose our place in the world, our interests, and any sense of self.
• Kant's theory is abstract and not always easily applied to individual moral situations, it tells you what types of actions are good, but it does not tell you what is the right thing to do in particular situations.
• Not every universal maxim is a moral one .e.g all people who take a life should be punished to death. To some capital punishment is an immoral act yet it passes the test of universalization.
• Alasdair MacIntyre: You can use the universalisability principle to justify practically anything: "All I need to do is to characterize the proposed action in such a way that the maxim will permit me to do what I want while prohibiting others from doing what would nullify the action if universalized."