Ethics

Abstract
This paper tackles ethical theory of Kant, which is the categorical imperative, as well as how Kant developed it out of the weaknesses of the ethical theories of his time. The paper also discusses the possible weaknesses of the categorical imperative on the basis of the validity of its a priori nature as well as the one-sidedness of its idea of universality.

In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action or inaction to be necessary and practical (Kant, 1993, p. 413). The categorical imperative, as stated in Kants Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, was formulated by Kant from the deficiencies of the previous ethical theories prior to and during his time, namely Utilitarianism, Rationalism and Empiricism. Kants categorical imperative is a type of imperative which states what one ought to do under certain circumstances and it implies the moral requirement that we should act directly and unconditionally in order to achieve some end or purpose (p. 417). To this day Kants categorical imperative has remained the basis of Christian philosophy and almost all religious and national laws.

Kants Criticism of the Previous Ethical Theories
Prior to the formulation of Kants ethical theory, Kant had already read the German versions of the philosophical works of his time. Some of the theories he criticized were those of the British Empiricists Locke, Hume and Berkeley who all believed that the human knowledge derives solely from experience and it follows that morality is also based upon it. Kant argued that knowledge is not all derived from the senses and that morality must be autonomous and governed by the reason in each person and should not be based on submission to the passions just like what Hume theorized (Durant 1961, p. 265). However, Kant he further stated that experience tells us what is, but not that it must be necessarily what it is and not otherwise yet it is not a necessity in determining morality (Durant 1961, p. 266).

In contrast with the Empiricists, the Rationalists Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza argued that knowledge could be obtained through the faculties of the mind alone and that moral standards should be based on reason. Kant refuted this idea by saying that knowledge of external objects cannot be inferential and that pure reason cannot claim to know Gods existence, free will, immortality and morality (McCormick 2005).

The third school of thought he argued against was the Utilitarianism of Bentham. Kant opposed Benthams idea that all punishment is evil by saying that people who do something wrong deserve punishment. Kant further criticized the Utilitarians for adopting as the basis of morality the ends of an action and not the means. For Bentham, the vague end result of happiness is his moral basis while for Kant it is motive itself (Shannon, 2008).Autonomy and Heteronomy

Kant distinguishes between autonomy and heteronomy, which are two different types of free will. Pence states that autonomy is the freedom to act independently of any external rule of authority (as cited in Shannon, 2008). On the other hand, heteronomy, which are from the Greek words for other and law, is the opposite of autonomy. An autonomous person is someone whose will is determined by the self while a heteronymous person is one whose will is subject to the dictates of something outside the person such as emotions. However, according to Kant, the necessary condition for a moral act is not heteronomy but autonomy (Shannon, 2008).

The Categorical Imperative
In the Groundwork, Kant distinguishes between the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperative states that if one wants to do A, then he should do B, or he may choose not to do B or even A (Kant, 1993, p. 414). On the other hand, the categorical imperative requires that if one wants to do A, then he really ought to do B. It therefore follows that doing B is of an absolute necessity, is considered a moral duty, and is unconditional (p. 420).

The categorical imperative therefore, as Kants criterion of morality, serves as an unconditional moral command holding true regardless of conditions. According to this criterion of morality, in every ethical situation, it does not matter what the particular circumstances are, where and when they occur, and who is involved (Sahakian  Sahakian, 1966, p. 45-46).

From the aforementioned definition of the categorical imperative, one can see that adherence to it provides for autonomous ethical choice. Autonomy, which means acting independently of any external rule of authority, translates to the act of making a moral decision independent of the external circumstances surrounding the ethical situation, which is the categorical imperative.

Kants categorical imperative, which is likened to the Golden Rule, is stated in two formulations. The first formulation commands one to act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. The second formulation states that one should act in such a way that he should treat humanity, whether in his own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end (Sahakian  Sahakian, 1966, p. 45-46).

Personal Evaluation
Kants categorical imperative, according to the philosopher himself, may be more substantial than the ethical theories of the Empiricists, Rationalists and Utilitarians, and it may be as noble as the Golden Rule. However, personally I do not think that the categorical imperative is fit for ethical decision making because of it does not seem to qualify as an a priori principle in all cases.

According to Kant, an action is good not because it has good results or it is wise but because it is done in obedience to this inner sense of duty (Durant, 1961, p. 274). However, this inner sense of duty, which is none other than the categorical imperative itself, may not be entirely a priori but is directed towards an external beneficial purpose. Kant presented an example in his Groundwork about a man who borrows money and is willing to pay his debts because the self-love that he has about not planning not to pay back could simply not hold as a universal law of nature (Kant, 1993, p. 421). It simply means that just because the man cannot imagine a world where people borrow and not pay back, it therefore means that one should pay back. This, I believe, is nothing but a philosophy of conformity and submission to the unwritten rules and norms of society. Kant, therefore, in establishing the Golden-Rule-like formulation of the categorical imperative, had on his mind nothing but the happiness of all, or at least the majority, which is the exact summum bonum of Utilitarianism. If Kant truly classifies the categorical imperative as a priori, then he must not aim for the happiness of others in so far as he aims for the sacrifice of the individual.

Another reason for the weakness of the categorical imperative is that the so-called universality of an idea or principle attached to its definition may actually be nothing but a mere opinion based on the majority or what is widely-accepted as proper or what conforms to the idea of peace and order. The most possible fallacies it might therefore commit include argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam. What if the true universal is not order but disorder as what some physicists have theorized
The aforementioned arguments try to prove the weakness of Kants ethical theory.

Conclusion
Kants categorical imperative has nobly emphasized the importance of motive in determining the morality of an action and has at its core the autonomy of the self and the happiness of all. Kants ethical theory is therefore both seemingly stoical and utilitarian in nature and is worthy of praise for such an unusual mix. Although the categorical imperative lends itself to some weaknesses in terms of logic, it remains as the bastion of conscience, pure goodness and self-sacrifice, which are the very elements of true morality.