FREE ESSAY ON CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a
method for determining morality of actions. This formula is a two parts test. First, one
creates a maxim and considers whether the maxim could be a universal law for all rational
beings. Second, one determines whether rational beings would will it to be a universal
law. Once it is clear that the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no
exceptions. As a paramedic faced with a distraught widow who asks whether her late
husband suffered in his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create and based
on the test which action to perform. The maxim when answering a widow's inquiry as to the
nature and duration of her late husbands death, one should always tell the truth
regarding the nature of her late husband's death (Maxim 1) passes both parts of the
Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative. Consequently, according to Kant,
Maxim 1 is a moral action.
The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires
that a maxim be universally applicable to all rational beings. M1 succeeds in passing the
first stage. We can easily imagine a world in which paramedics always answer widows
truthfully when queried. Therefore, this maxim is logical and everyone can abide by it
without causing a logical impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second
stage of the test.
The second requirement is that a rational being would will this maxim to become a
universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in every case, a rational
being would believe that the morally correct action is to tell the truth. First, it is
clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A lie would only serve to spare her
feelings if she believed it to be the truth. Therefore, even people who would consider
lying to her, must concede that the correct and expected action is to tell the truth. By
asking she has already decided, good or bad, that she must know the truth. 
What if telling the truth brings the widow to the point where she commits suicide,
however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action although its consequence is this
terrible response? If telling the widow the truth drives her to commit suicide, it seems
like no rational being would will the maxim to become a universal law. The suicide is,
however, a consequence of your initial action. The suicide has no bearing, at least for
the Categorical Imperative, on whether telling the truth is moral or not. Likewise it is
impossible to judge whether upon hearing the news, the widow would commit suicide.
Granted it is a possibility, but there are a multitude of alternative choices that she
could make and it is impossible to predict each one. To decide whether rational being
would will a maxim to become a law, the maxim itself must be examined rationally and not
its consequences. Accordingly, the maxim passes the second test.
Conversely, some people might argue that in telling the widow a lie, you spare her years
of torment and suffering. These supporters of white lies feel the maxim should read, When
facing a distraught widow, you should lie in regards to the death of her late husband in
order to spare her feelings. Applying the first part of the Universal Law Formation of
the Categorical Imperative, it appears that this maxim is a moral act. Certainly, a
universal law that prevents the feelings of people who are already in pain from being
hurt further seems like an excellent universal law. Unfortunately for this line of
objection, the only reason a lie works is because the person being lied to believes it to
be the truth. In a situation where every widow is lied to in order to spare her feelings,
then they never get the truth. This leads to a logical contradiction because no one will
believe a lie if they know it a lie and the maxim fails.
Perhaps the die-hard liar can regroup and test a narrower maxim. If it is narrow enough
so that it encompasses only a few people, then it passes the first test. For example, the
maxim could read, When facing a distraught widow whose late husband has driven off a
bridge at night, and he struggled to get out of the car but ended up drowning, and he was
wearing a brown suit and brown loafers, then you should tell the widow that he died
instantly in order to spare her feelings. We can easily imagine a world in which all
paramedics lied to widows in this specific situation.
That does not necessarily mean that it will pass the second test however. Even if it does
pass the first test, narrowing down maxim can create other problems. For instance
circumstances may change and the people who were originally included in the universal
law, may not be included anymore. Consequently you many not want to will your maxim to be
a universal law. Likewise, if one person can make these maxims that include only a select
group of people, so can everyone else. If you create a maxim about lying to widows that
is specific enough to pass the first test, so can everyone else. One must ask if rational
beings would really will such a world in which there would be many, many specific, but
universal, laws. In order to answer this question, one must use the rational I for the
statement I, as a rational being would will such a world, not the specific, embodied I
which represents you in your present condition. You must consider that you could be the
widow in the situation rather than the paramedic, then decide whether you would will such
a universal law.
Hence, if we cannot use maxims that are either too broad nor too narrow; neither too
vague nor too specific, then what is the right maxim? The best way to find the right size
maxim is built directly into the categorical imperative itself: if the categorical
imperative directs us to act as we would will to be universal, then we should choose the
size of our maxims such that we would will that size of maxim to be universal. This form
of reasoning will foster a feeling of properness in the choosing of actions and fully
respects personal perspective in the same way that the original categorical imperative
does. 
However, according to what I have learned before, utilitarianism would offer a different
interpretation on this. Utilitarianism outlines that an action is moral if it increases
the total happiness of society. Morality is based on consequences. Telling a lie to the
widow would increase her happiness and consequently would, at least possibly, be a moral
action. Utilitarianism would also take into account the precedent set by lying; however,
the analysis still rests on predicted consequence rather than on the action's intrinsic
moral value. The morality of telling the lie is on a case by case basis. In some
situations, it might be better to tell the truth, and according to utilitarianism that
would then be the moral action. Unlike Kantian philosophy, one is not bound by an
immutable universal law. Instead one must judge in each case which action will produce
the most overall happiness. The problem with this approach is that morality loses any
value as a universal or intrinsic quality. Every decision is made on an individual basis
in an