Search @ Rhodes

On Thursday in class we talked in great depth about the “categorical imperative.” We defined the categorical imperative as conformity to natural law. According to Kant, this means that there are natural sets of moral laws, just like laws of physics that all rational agents reacting rationally must follow. The first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one should “act only in such a way that you can will the maxim of your action as a universal law.” In other words a good action is one in which everyone ought to act and can be willed universally. 

The example of this formulation that we discussed in class was keeping promises. Even though we all agreed that keeping promises is a good action that all rational agents ought to do, there was still a question of what to do in a conflict of duties. For example, the question that was raised in my mind was what if I make a promise to go to a concert with a good friend, but at the last minute an emergency arose that would require me to break that promise. Would it be immoral to break a promise for an emergency? In class we talked about that in a conflict of two morally good duties it would be okay to make a decision based on what would do the most good. So, in this case, it would morally good to cancel your plans for the concert and take care of the emergency. However, what if I do not want to miss the concert and I only take care of the emergency because I feel like I have to. Would this make my decision morally wrong? After reading what Kant wrote, I would assume that this would be wrong because I did not make the decision out of duty, I made my decision based on consequences. Just because I do the right thing does not make me a morally good person.