Kant the Categorical Imperative Ascribes

Kant The categorical imperative ascribes absolute categories to "right" versus "wrong" actions. Kant posits that morality involves strict laws of prescription and proscription; that is, there are moral imperatives to refrain from some behaviors and engage in others. The categorical imperative is focused on behaviors, not on intentions; and also on actions and not on their results. A behavior is morally judged based on its inherent merits.

The problem with the categorical imperative is that Kant fails to provide an adequate moral authority that would describe what behaviors are categorically right and wrong. There are no conditions that alter the categorical imperative, making moral ambiguity impossible in the Kantian framework. Morality, according to Kant, is absolute. A behavior cannot be "right some of the time." There are no situational ethics in the categorical imperative, either.

Kant calls an imperative a command, phrased in the form of an "ought." In other words, a person "ought to tell the truth." The commandh is a "representation of an objective principle," implying that there are objectives moral truths that are universal and incontrovertible. Moreover, Kant is concerned about human will and impetus to act, as he states of the imperative," insofar as it is necessitating for a will," (30). The law, claims Kant, is insufficient to provide moral codes because they do not proscribe behavior in an absolute way.

In this sense, the categorical imperative shares a boundary with Aristotelian virtue ethics. Furthermore, the categorical imperative exists whether the person likes it or not. Kant expressly denies that a morally just act is "agreeable," (30). The categorical imperative fits in neatly with religious moral codes, since religious moral codes are absolute. Kantian categories of right and wrong derive from a mysterious divine moral code. Yet Kant proclaims that moral categories are not divine but-based rather on reason.

It is not enough to have various options to choose from; Kant suggests that there is a need to pick one option and only one option is correct. Doing what is right usually but not always requires a form of self-sacrifice, as what it right is not always what is good for the actor. Therefore, another formulation of the categorical imperative can be readily found in global religious codes. The Bible offers a categorical imperative in Mosaic law.

Phrased not as "oughts," but as "shalts," the Ten Commandments nevertheless encapsulate what Kant is trying to say with the Categorical Imperative. Because there are extreme absolutes in Mosaic law, they represent the harsh moral categories of right and wrong, with no room for ambiguity. Although both the Old and New Testaments offer contradictory evidence regarding the nature of morality and ethics, the Mosaic law provides the rational structure for decision-making within the framework of a categorical imperative.

There is an express moral duty, Kant would say, to conform to Mosaic law. This duty is symbolized by one's faith or belief in God. If that faith or belief is non-existent, however, there can be no categorical imperative due to the fact that the foundation of authority has been shattered. The Bible also calls for the application of human free will to morality, as does Kant.

Stories in the Bible reveal how human actors either obey or disobey the moral codes prescribed to them by the Biblical authorities, namely God. When God issues a "thou shalt," that moral law is ensconced. The person has free will, and therefore can be tricked by a malicious force symbolized by Satan. It is necessary to have free will for the categorical imperative to work, which is why there is the problem between good and evil in the first place.

If it were easy for human beings to always do good, then Kant would have not had the impetus to write Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. There would be an imperative to act, but it would not be categorical. Free will empowers the human being to make morally righteous choices, in accordance with the tenets of human reason. One formulation of the categorical imperative that illustrates the concept is related to gay marriage.

Interestingly, many "Bible thumpers" use the Mosaic law foundation as a means to bolster a spurious case against equality and human rights. Yet there is nothing in Mosaic law that prohibits gay marriage per se. Gay marriage as a sociological phenomenon did not exist at the time of the writing of the Bible: Hebrew or Christian. Therefore, one must look to the moral codes embedded in the Pentateuch and the Christian Bible in order to discover what the categorical imperatives are.

In this case, the imperative is to do right by all human beings. Universal truth and human.