The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative has two well-known formulations thanks to Kant. The two formulations are action-oriented and are based on established principles. The first formulation differs from the second in that it is founded on the universality principle and the rule of nature. According to Kant, a valid moral claim is one that is not dependent on other factors, such a person's identity. The argument has the effect of highlighting the significance of moral reflection. He continued by saying that a maxim is only moral if it is absolutely necessary and is therefore unrelated to the physical circumstances in which it is applied. This principle was the basis for the formulation of the universality principle.
Kant's Two Types of Duties
Kant used this first formulation to come up with two types of duties. The first category is composed of those duties that were have verses those of others. For example, we have the duty to ensure enjoying our rights does not infringe on the freedoms of others. He came up with a clear distinction between the perfect duties and the imperfect duties. Perfect duty implies that acting freely from the maxims that emanate from contradictions that are logical in nature in a bid to universalize them. A proposition like it is right to steal, results to the contradiction on the universality principle. Stealing would result to rendering the idea of private property to be moot. For this reason, the proposition can be said to be negating itself from a logical point of view. From Kant's first formulation, it is clear that perfect duties are characterized with blameworthiness and are paramount for all human beings.
Imperfect Duties and Moral Binding
Just like the perfect duties, imperfect duties have a pure reason at their core. However, the latter has a room for desire when put in practice. They are further guided by the human preferences that are subjective in nature. Imperfect duties may not sound as strong as the perfect ones but a moral binding cut across. Failing to perform an imperfect duty does not result to personal blame while the completion attracts the praise of transcending the basic duties. Besides, the imperfect duties are not in a constant state, implying that it is not a must to have them completed. Kant gave an example of the imperfect duty as that of dedicating oneself to realize the full potential through talent (Kant 43)
Kant's Views and Utilitarianism
From a utilitarian point of view, the ideas presented by Kant turn out to be insufficient if not contradictory. Kant's argument is based on the idea that human reason is the major drive in carrying out our moral duties. He failed to acknowledge the tangible effects of actions to the idea of eudaemonia or the pursuit of happiness. It, therefore, turns out that the categorical imperative was a criterion of accessing our reasons' command in a direct manner that is not affected by other considerations. From a utilitarian point of view propounded by scholars such as Mill, human actions are guided by our pursuit of happiness. The utilitarian principle or the principle of morality argues that actions can only be regarded as being right and appropriate if they promote happiness (Veenhoven 335). The reverse of happiness means that the actions taken are wrong.
Kant's Categorical Imperative as a Disguised Utilitarianism
Mill's account had factored in the categorical imperative given the influence that Kant's theory had on the scholars of the time. The first categorical imperative from Mill's point of view fails to be a perfect and a rational cause of obligation. Kant's arguments, therefore, turn out to be a disguised version of utilitarianism, something that he would not have thought of. The first principle was meant to explain the sources of moral obligation. However, Kant failed to avoid the contradiction that would arise from the impossibility of rational human beings adopting immoral rules of conduct. He seems to have dwelled so much on the consequence of the moral adoption. Based on the formula of the categorical imperative particularly that of the law of nature, contradictions arise from the universalization of the intended maxim. Instead, more emphasis was laid on the consequences of universalization in the promotion of happiness or unhappiness. Although Kant held the idea that the universalization is purely about looking for possible contradictions, Mill held the view had that it was all about envisioning the negative and unpleasant effects of the universalized rule (Ofseyer 396).
Kant's Influence and Importance
Unlike Mill, Kant was trying against all odds to rescue the universalization principle from consequentialists distorted interpretations. If possible, Kant would defend his argument through a proposition such as harmful effects not necessarily making actions to be deemed as immoral. Something is wrong with actions because of the constant conflict with the rational intuitions that guide moral duties. If the principle of universalization was about the envisioning of the consequences, then it ought to be dropped as the guide for morality. However, the principle can still act as a litmus test for human moral conduct despite the faulty nature and the tainted history behind it. Besides, his account is of utmost importance to scholars who would wish to understand the philosophical standpoints of the scholars who lived before and after Emmanuel Kant.
Works Cited
Ofseyer, Jeremy J. "Taking Liberties with John Stuart Mill." Ann. Surv. Am. L. (1999): 395.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals. Courier Corporation, 2012.
Veenhoven, Ruut. "The utility of happiness." Social indicators research 20.4 (1988): 335.
