Expository Essay on Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

Introduction

For centuries, philosophers worldwide have tried to come up with a final and convincing definition of morality. Additionally, they have attempted to come up with codes of conduct that they deem fit to be followed by everyone in the society to achieve high moral standards. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, is an example of such scholars who came up with a code of conduct. He was the inventor of the Kantian philosophy. His thinking is that of Universal Law of Categorical Imperative. In his opinion, this law can be used to determine the morals behind every action. However, there are other philosophers with a different school of thought which contradicts Kant's proposals. The essay will address the arguments for Kant's opinion and the possible criticism that might face the reasons to support his supposition and conclude by providing rebuttals to the criticisms.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Opponents of Kant's categorical imperative, the consequentialist theorists, have rebutted his theory saying that it is not applicable in most case scenarios. They believe that moral actions are those that bring ultimate happiness to everyone. Unlike Kant, these opponents argue that the rightness of an act should be discerned by the consequences and not the intention (Portmore, 2016, pp. 747-750). They emphasize that situations should be analyzed on a case by case basis to determine the morally right action. In some situations, they argue, it might be better, to be honest while in others, not revealing the truth will suffice. Unlike Kantians, they do not bind people by any universal law. They, therefore, encourage people to choose an action, in each case, which will bring ultimate joy to everyone. For example, let us assume you are an oncologist in a hospital and a diabetic patient comes for a regular check-up. Unfortunately, he is found to additionally have cancer. As per the consequentialists, it would be prudent first to analyze the outcome of revealing the new diagnosis. Will it bring more misery to the already suffering patient? If yes, the theory says, do not disclose this new diagnosis. This thinking, accordingly, suggests that the patient should not be informed of his new diagnosis because of the detrimental effects it will have on the patients. An example of such is committal of suicide by the patient. To give the patient hope and at least some happiness, you, as an oncologist, based on the consequentialist rule, will be bound not to reveal the new medical diagnosis.

Let us, for a moment assume that the oncologist revealed the news to the patient who consequently committed suicide. As per the consequentialist theory, the doctor's action was immoral. However, it is my personal opinion that the diabetic patient's suicide should not be pegged to the oncologist's action of revealing the information. At least, as per the categorical imperative, the suicide cannot be a consequence of telling the truth. Undeniably, the doctor, during the moment of revealing the diagnosis to the patient, could not foreshadow the action of committing suicide. Furthermore, by not telling the patient his new medical condition and therefore failing to initiate cancer treatment, chances of cancer metastasis will likely double and consequently result in medical complications or even death. Concealing information to the patient will likely increase the chances of hospitalization. It is my personal opinion, therefore, that the consequences of an action guided by a maxim should not be the primary reason why a rule becomes a universal law. Rather, the reason behind coming up with the maxim should be primarily considered in determining suitable universal maxims (Guyer, 2014). Indeed, preventing further emotional damage for the diabetic patient is rational. However, if we all start lying for fear of the outcomes, then we will build a culture of mistrust among us. Using the above example, regardless of the patient's health status, telling him the truth would be the best choice any morally upright person will make. Accordingly, we, as custodians of morals and ethics, cannot use individual cases to determine the morality of an action. Similarly, the consequences should not be the chief determinant of ethics. Rather, these maxims should be chosen on the premise that every being, as long as they are rational, wills these maxims to be universally accepted and followed.

A probable response by the consequentialists to my argument, while still maintaining theirs of a case by case analysis, will be that with regards to the patient, knowledge of his new condition will likely worsen his medical prognosis and treatment outcome of diabetes. Their probable reason will be depression. Unquestionably, depression occasionally leads to noncompliance with medical treatment (DiMatten, Lepper and Croghan, 2000, pp. 2101-2107). Therefore, with an almost certain death sentence in cancer diagnosis, much as this revelation will likely lengthen the life of the patient if timely medical intervention is taken, the consequentialists will critique my opinion by saying that the newly diagnosed cancer patient will see no need to adhere to diabetes therapy. Why would you spend resources on diabetes when cancer, with its very poor prognosis, is patiently waiting to snatch your life away when the time comes? Why would you take away someone's happiness, who, after the initial diabetes diagnosis, probably gave up hope of life? Accordingly, the crusaders of this theory will say that revealing the new condition will hasten the process of death. To them, it would be prudent to just let the patient succumb to his ailments with his happiness intact and undamaged.

As a proponent of the Kant's philosophy, a possible rebuttal to this criticism would be to argue that professional counseling is a channel through which an emotionally challenged person can be advised to accept their current conditions. Consequently, this will likely maintain their adherence to medications. Through group therapies, for example, this patient can share his grief with members with almost similar troubles. In the end, he will more likely regain the happiness and joy that was snatched from him by the news of cancer detection. This group will additionally help the patient to uncover the blind spots that may block him from seeing ways of overcoming his troubles (Piper et al., 2011). With regained happiness and hope, medication adherence will not be an issue.

The believers of consequence based action will, nonetheless, likely fight back by saying that professional counseling will possibly not restore the patient back to the mental status he was in before the news was broken to him. Admittedly, with such illnesses, there is always uncertainty as to what the future holds for these patients. Therefore, these theorists will maintain that professional help will not undo the damage that was done when the cancer diagnosis was made known to the patient. Accordingly, they will emphasize, he will always look into the future will bleak hope and will never be able to outrun the 'ghost' of cancer which will always be 'haunting' him.

Conclusion

To sum up, this essay has discussed, with an example of a patient dilemma, the opposing theory to Kant's categorical imperative. Similarly, it has illustrated the importance of adopting Kant's proposal in everyday practice. Unquestionably, happiness is paramount in ensuring a person's well-being. However, the need for ensuring joy among individuals should not compromise our nature of being honest and straight-forward in our everyday dealings. As a result, we, as spear-headers of morality, should strive to use Kant's theory to guide our daily moral lives.

Works Cited

DiMatteo, M. Robin, Heidi S. Lepper, and Thomas W. Croghan. "Depression is a risk factor for noncompliance with medical treatment: meta-analysis of the effects of anxiety and depression on patient adherence." Archives of internal medicine 160.14 (2000): 2101-2107.

Guyer, Paul. Kant. Routledge, 2014.Kant, Immanuel. Kant: The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press, 2017.Piper, William E., et al. "Effectiveness of individual and group therapies." (2011).

Portmore, Douglas W. "The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk, written by M. Peterson." Journal of Moral Philosophy 13.6 (2016): 747-750.