CATHORIC UNIVERSITY OF MBEYA (CUoM)

COURSE NAME : SOCIAL AND BUSINESS ETHICS

COURSE CODE : PH 113

TYPE OF WORK : GROUP ASSIGENMENT 01

NAME OF LECTURER : PAUL MSILIMO

DATE OF SUBMISSION :

GROUP MEMBERS

S/N NAMES REGISTRATION NUMBERS SIGNATURE

01 GETRUDA KISIGA CM/BD/2024/89421

02 BONIPHACE DAUDI CM/BD/2024/88586

03 BEATRICE J. MANUMBU CM/BD/2024/88157

04 HAMISI HAMISI CM/BD/2024/88685

05 JOSEPHAT OBED CM/BD/2024/93231

06 RIGHTNES NDUNGURU CM/BD/2024/87669

07 SAFARI D. JOHN CM/BD/2024/89535

08 DORAH MWIJUMA CM/BD/2024/90128

09 OBADIA FUMBO CM/BD/2024/87522

10 JACKSON KISAPA CM/BD/2024/90010

11 PAUL MASHAMBA CM/BD/2024/88682

John Emanuel mwakalibure Cm/BD/90856 2024

The Categorical Imperative Ethical

The Categorical Imperative; is a central concept in the moral philosophy of "Immanuel Kant", an 18th-
century German philosopher. It serves as the foundation of his "deontological ethical theory", which
emphasizes the role of duty, moral rules, and rationality in ethical decision-making. Unlike
consequentialist theories, which judge the morality of actions based on their outcomes, Kant's approach
argues that morality should be grounded in universal principles that apply to all rational beings,
irrespective of circumstances. The Categorical Imperative provides a framework to evaluate whether an
action aligns with moral duty and universal ethical standards.

The Concept of the Categorical Imperative

Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative as a universal moral law, distinct from hypothetical
imperatives.

Hypothetical Imperative; Commands actions that are necessary to achieve a specific goal, e.g., "If you
want to stay healthy, exercise regularly." These are conditional and depend on individual desires.

Categorical Imperative; Commands actions that are inherently required, irrespective of personal goals
or desires. It is absolute and unconditional, stating, "You must act in a certain way because it is morally
right."

Kant formulated the Categorical Imperative in several key ways:

The Formula of Universal Law; "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law." This principle emphasizes that one's actions should be
guided by rules that could consistently be applied to everyone without contradiction. For instance, lying
could not become a universal law because it would undermine trust and render communication
meaningless.
The Formula of Humanity; "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means to an end." This
formulation stresses the inherent dignity and worth of individuals. It forbids using people as mere tools
to achieve selfish goals, highlighting respect and autonomy.

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends; "Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a
merely possible kingdom of ends."Here, Kant envisions a moral community where all individuals act
according to universal laws they legislate themselves, respecting each other's autonomy and rationality.

The following are the Strengths of the Categorical Imperative

Universality; It provides a clear standard for morality that applies equally to all, avoiding subjective
biases.

Respect for Individuals; The focus on treating people as ends rather than means promotes dignity and
respect.

Moral Clarity; By emphasizing duty and rational principles, it avoids moral relativism and emotional
subjectivity.

The following are the Criticisms of the Categorical Imperative

Rigidity; Critics argue that it does not allow flexibility for complex moral dilemmas, such as choosing
between two conflicting duties.

Disregard for Consequences; By focusing solely on the moral law, it sometimes overlooks the real-world
outcomes of actions, which can lead to counterintuitive results.

Practicality; The demand to universalize every action can be overly demanding and difficult to apply
consistently in everyday life.

Dealized View of Human Nature; Kant’s ethical theory assumes that humans are inherently rational and
will act out of duty. Critics argue that humans are often driven by emotions, desires, and other non-
rational factors that can conflict with Kantian ethics.Example Kantian ethics assumes that a person will
act from a sense of moral duty, but many people often act based on emotional impulses or self-interest,
making the theory seem impractical in certain situations.

Conflict of Duties; Kant’s ethical theory does not provide clear guidance when two or more duties
conflict with each other.Example suppose you have a duty to tell the truth, but you also have a duty to
protect someone's life. If these two duties come into conflict (for instance, by telling the truth in a
situation where it might endanger someone), Kant’s theory does not offer a clear solution about which
duty should take precedence.

Overemphasis on Rationality; The Categorical Imperative assumes that all moral agents are rational and
capable of discerning universal principles. This excludes individuals who may not possess the same level
of reasoning ability, such as children, people with certain disabilities, or non-human animals. Example if
someone lacks the rational capacity to understand the moral law, should they be held to the same moral
standards as rational agents? Kant’s framework does not adequately address these concerns.

Abstract Nature of Moral Rules; The principle of universalizability is sometimes seen as too abstract to
guide moral decisions effectively. People might interpret universal principles differently, leading to
conflicting conclusions about what is morally right.Example the question "Can I will that everyone do
this?" can be interpreted in various ways depending on one's perspective, leading to subjective or
conflicting moral judgments.

Consequences are Ignored; Kantian ethics is deontological, meaning it focuses on the morality of actions
themselves rather than their consequences. Critics argue that this is problematic because consequences
are often central to our moral intuitions.Example if telling a lie could save someone's life, Kantian ethics
might still deem it immoral because it cannot be universalized. However, many people would argue that
saving a life outweighs the abstract principle of truth-telling in such a case.

Difficulty of Application in Complex Situations; Applying the Categorical Imperative can be difficult in
real-world, complex situations where moral duties are not clear-cut.Example in situations involving
complex moral dilemmas, such as the ethics of war, it can be hard to apply Kant's principle of
universalization. Determining what should be universalized in such contexts may lead to contradictions
or moral paradoxes.

Therefore; the Categorical Imperative remains one of the most influential and rigorous ethical theories
in philosophy. Its emphasis on duty, rationality, and universal moral principles challenges individuals to
act not out of self-interest or emotions but from a sense of obligation to humanity as a whole. Despite
its criticisms, Kant’s framework continues to inspire ethical discourse and provides a valuable
perspective on moral reasoning that transcends cultural and temporal boundaries. By prioritizing
universal laws and respect for human dignity, the Categorical Imperative offers a profound and enduring
vision of morality.

REFERENCES
Kant, E. (2006). The Categorical Imperative: In J. White press

Allison, H. (2011). Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary: Oxford University
Press

Roger,J.S.(2012). The Categorical Imperative Published online: Cambridge University Press.