Download Morality and Justice Final Paper

1
Morality and Justice
“The Categorical Imperative”
Final Paper: Topic #3
Brittany Yantis
Due: Wednesday, April 25th
2
What makes something right versus wrong? For years, philosophers have strived to
provide an answer to this question on how we should live. Immanuel Kant simply believed
that there is a single fundamental principle of morality in which all moral duties are based. He
calls this the categorical imperative, or the moral law. In his moral theory, he discusses two
uses of the categorical imperative, universality and humans as ends, not means. He utilizes the
autonomy of the will to describe the absolute moral rules all rational beings are bound by.
According to Kant’s ethical theory, in the case of baby Theresa, it would be morally
unjustifiable to harvest her organs because it is unable to be universalized and is using her as
solely a means.
For Kant, there are two types of imperatives we can choose to live by, hypothetical or
categorical. Hypothetical imperatives provide a course of action that will help us get what we
want. It relies solely on relevant desires to tell us what we “ought” to do. It simply states if you
desire X then you should do Y. The categorical imperative, conversely, describes moral
obligations that are independent from desires. All of our duties can be derived from this
ultimate principle of you should do Z, no matter what you want. There are two ways Kant uses
the categorical imperative to help identify whether something is morally permissible or not.
First, humans should “act according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law” (Rachels 128). We should all act in accordance with a rule,
or maxim, that can be consistently willed as a universal law. One must identify the maxim, and
determine whether or not they can will for it to become a universal law to be followed by
people at all times. If it can’t be universalized, the action is wrong and violates the imperative.
Secondly, humans should “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
that of another, always as an end and never as means only” (Rachels 137). According to Kant,
humans have an intrinsic worth, or dignity, that places them above all else. Humans aren’t
3
just driven by passions, but are rational beings driven by reason. It is wrong to use people to
achieve our purposes, no matter how good the end may be. The ends never justify the means,
but the means justify the ends.
The autonomy of the good will explains how the categorical imperative is derived. If
one has the utmost respect for the moral law, they possess the good will. It provides us with
the ability to reason, the ultimate source of moral worth. To be autonomous means to be
bound by the moral law and one’s good will. If something outside one’s will determines their
actions, they are by no means free. To be truly free, one’s will is what gives reasons for their
actions. Those reasons are universal and bind all rational beings to the moral law. Therefore,
in order for one’s actions to be truly free, they must be governed by a maxim that can be
universalized, which is essentially the first formulation of the categorical imperative.
The authority of the good will lies in us, in our reasons, not in our feelings or
inclinations. The good will is good not because of its effects, but because it is good in and of
itself, something that only rational beings can possess (Ethics 317). Non-rational creatures are
pushed and pulled by their inclinations. Rational agents, however, who possess good will are
“free agents capable of making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their
conduct by reason” absent from all desires (Rachels 137). In order to fulfill their moral duty,
rational agents must act on that good will and be bound by it. The autonomy of the good will
respects rational beings and recognizes them as valuable. Rational beings are the only reason
value even exists at all; they are the standard by which everything else compares. Since
humans are tied to this moral duty of the good will, they should never be treated as a means,
but taken as a dignity worth in and of themselves.
The two formulations of the categorical imperative clearly forbid two things; actions
that involve maxims that can’t be universalized and treating people as means only. Based on
4
this, Kant would not think that harvesting baby Theresa’s organs would be morally justifiable.
Theresa was born with anencephaly, commonly referred to as “babies without brains”
(Rachels 1). Important parts of her brain were missing, but autonomic functions like
breathing and heartbeat were possible. Theresa’s parents, knowing she would soon die,
volunteered her organs for transplant to help other children. Theresa’s organs were never
donated as Florida law prohibited taking organs before death. The case sparked a lot of debate
over whether or not her parents should have been allowed to donate her organs, or more
simply put, to use their child as a means to others ends. According to Kant this is in no way
morally justifiable. It goes against his very belief that humans have an important dignity that
should not be used purely as a means. Humans, like all rational agents, are a source of value. If
your phone breaks, you can simply replace it. If your child dies, you cannot simply just find a
new one. Humans have a dignity that all “things” lack. It doesn’t matter how good the ends
might be, using Theresa’s organs to save other children’s lives is a manipulation to use her as
a means to an end. Many may argue that Theresa had no dignity. She lacked the parts of the
brains that would have allowed her to live a full cognitive life. However, according to the
categorical imperative, this maxim cannot be universalized based upon a simple test. If we kill
baby Theresa, other children’s lives will be saved. We will kill baby Theresa. So everyone
should be allowed to kill to save other people’s lives. But if everyone kills, then lives are
essentially not being saved at all. So, if we will to kill, then more people end up getting hurt
than being saved. Therefore, the maxim of killing baby Theresa does not pass the test.
Applying this universally creates a slippery slope. Where is the line? Can I murder an innocent
being to take their organs to save my dying friends’ life? No, killing for other’s ends does not
apply universally and therefore the action is unjustifiable according to Kantian ethics.