About Kant’s categorical imperative and how it underpins our duty not to tell lies. How does the derivation of this duty work? Is it convincing?
The categorical stands for the command that must be followed without exception. The imperative is accordance with duty. That is an only act in such way you could will your maxim into universal law.
The following is an example of a derivation of morality.
If you need money (categorical)
Tell a false promise. (imperative)
The action in this example implies that was done in accordance with duty toward an indirect inclination.
It is convincing because in this case the false promises will be to maximise this inmoral case into a universal law. This implies reasonable consequences and the contrast with Kant. Kant’s theory is the purpose of life to have a good will.
November 6, 2007 at 5:05 am
Yes, in this case, the maxim cannot be willed into universal law. Where there are no promises, the maxim doesn’t work. If a person borrows money from you one time and doesn’t pay it back, the second time this situation comes up, you will not lend the person money.
November 6, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I agree with your point there is not much that can be add kant way of thinking is correct in this situation.
November 9, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I DON’T BELIEVE KANT TELLS US TO WILL ANYTHING IMMORAL INTO LAW. I BELIEVE KANT IS HELPING US DETERMINE WHAT ACTIONS ARE MORAL IF THEY WORK ALL THE TIME. IF THESE ACTIONS DON’T ALWAYS WORK THAN CI TELLS US HOW TO ACT.