| The serious problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative, is that it argues in circles. Basically, it says that you should never do something that you wouldn't do when you were sober and clear headed, some time about 11 am, after you had had your coffee. It doesn't address any of the serious ethical dilemmas.
For example, Kant claims that if we generalise claims enough, we will get rules such as "Do not lie", and "Do not steal". But what about, for example, if an axe murderer comes up to your door and asks whether you keep a spare key under the doormat. Being a moralist, you quickly employ the Categorical Imperative:
Generalisation 1: I should/shouldn't lie.
Employing this as a universal rule is a relatively simple matter, and you soon come up with the answer; "I shouldn't lie."
Generalisation 2: I should\shouldn't lie unless an axe murderer is trying to come in to my house and murder me and my family, with an axe"
Unless you are a weirdo, or follow duty ethics other than that of Kant, you will probably say "I should lie."
[edit] Oh yeah, and the other thing is what happens when the Categorical Imperative contradicts itself? How about when you say "I should/shouldn't let my family be axe-murdered"? You will probably come up with a conflicting statement.
Immidiately, we are struck with a problem; it is unclear as to how far we should generalise, because different levels of generalisation give different answers. |