Kant's Categorical Imperative has no serious weakness. Discuss (10)
I don't agree Kant's theory doesn't have a serious weakness, due to the issue of his theory to rely on duty instead of Bentham's utilitarian approach relying on the consequence or the outcome of a situation to judge whether or not it's right, and throughout this essay I will be proving why this deontological approach has its flaws.
Immanuel Kant believed that moral rules such as don't lie take the form of the categorical imperative, for example if someone showed up at your door wielding a weapon, shouting about killing your friend, demanding to see him, obviously the moral thing to do in this situation is to lie.
However Kant's categorical imperative denies him of doing such a thing because according to him, lying is wrong and in no circumstance should you do it, whether helping a friend or not.
Categorical imperatives leave no room for ifs, they are absolutes, however morality is a concept that is relative to human beings, is it a concept of our mind? Can we ever know the answer to my previous question? Kant believes that there is just one maxim that each action embodies, so we can test the morality of the act by looking if we can universalise the maxim, however there are so many variables of those maxims that may lead to a given action, some of these may be able to universalise, some won't be, and that in itself is a flaw of Kant's categorical imperative.
Kant stated himself:
"One should only act on a principle that one can will to be universal law".
This is how that quote works: If we decide to lie, we imagine what would happen if everybody lied, lying itself would become normal, and the concept of truth (and lying itself) would disappear. Language, logic, meaning and all human communication would disappear.
In a nutshell the Categorical Imperative has two parts. Either something Is moral or it Is not, there are no exceptions.
The first rule is called the universal...