⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study

Monday, December 06, 2021 10:09:07 PM

Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study



ISBN X. The Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study check includes: Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study with initial order details. Give money to HTF. These examples nicely Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study how category theory treats Theories Of Human Interaction notion of structure Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study a uniform manner. Martha, Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study a home-service medical care volunteer, has cared for George through the final weeks of his fatal illness. Since the answer to the first question is "No," Martha should Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study act on her maxim, since it fails the "contradiction in conception" test.

What is case study and how to conduct case study research

The categorical imperative has three different formulations. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first formulation. A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family. You are not allowed to make exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to keep your own promises.

For example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that such a maxim of lying should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative.

It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself. Kant on Moral Worth. The Moral Worth of Persons : Kant also has something to say about what makes someone a good person. Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what one's duty is would be determined by the categorical imperative. However, one can treat this as a separate theory to some extent, and consider that one's duty is determined by some other standard. Keep in mind that what is said below has to do with how one evaluates people, not actions. A person's actions are right or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth i. A person's actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong.

By "motivation" I mean what caused you to do the action i. Kant argues that one can have moral worth i. In other words, if a person's emotions or desires cause them to do something, then that action cannot give them moral worth. This may sound odd, but there is good reason to agree with Kant. I look around for what would be the most fun to do with it: buy a yacht, travel in first class around the world, get that knee operation, etc.. I decide that what would be really fun is to give the money to charity and to enjoy that special feeling you get from making people happy, so I give all my lottery money away. According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy person because I did this, after all I just did whatever I thought would be the most fun and there is nothing admirable about such a selfish pursuit.

It was just lucky for those charities that I thought giving away money was fun. Moral worth only comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty and you would do it regardless of whether you liked it. Imagine two people out together drinking at a bar late one night, and each of them decides to drive home very drunk. They drive in different directions through the middle of nowhere.

One of them encounters no one on the road, and so gets home without incident regardless of totally reckless driving. The other drunk is not so lucky and encounters someone walking at night, and kills the pedestrian with the car. Kant would argue that based on these actions both drunks are equally bad, and the fact that one person got lucky does not make them any better than the other drunk. After all, they both made the same choices, and nothing within either one's control had anything to do with the difference in their actions. The same reasoning applies to people who act for the right reasons. If both people act for the right reasons, then both are morally worthy, even if the actions of one of them happen to lead to bad consequences by bad luck.

Imagine that he gives to a charity and he intends to save hundreds of starving children in a remote village. The food arrives in the village but a group of rebels finds out that they have food, and they come to steal the food and end up killing all the children in the village and the adults too. The intended consequence of feeding starving children was good, and the actual consequences were bad. Kant is not saying that we should look at the intended consequences in order to make a moral evaluation. Kant is claiming that regardless of intended or actual consequences, moral worth is properly assessed by looking at the motivation of the action, which may be selfish even if the intended consequences are good.

One might think Kant is claiming that if one of my intentions is to make myself happy, that my action is not worthy. This is a mistake. The consequence of making myself happy is a good consequence, even according to Kant. Kant clearly thinks that people being happy is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with doing something with an intended consequence of making yourself happy, that is not selfishness. You can get moral worth doing things that you enjoy, but the reason you are doing them cannot be that you enjoy them, the reason must be that they are required by duty. Also, there is a tendency to think that Kant says it is always wrong to do something that just causes your own happiness, like buying an ice cream cone.

This is not the case. Kant thinks that you ought to do things to make yourself happy as long as you make sure that they are not immoral i. Getting ice cream is not immoral, and so you can go ahead and do it. Doing it will not make you a morally worthy person, but it won't make you a bad person either. Many actions which are permissible but not required by duty are neutral in this way.

It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they would do it even if they did not enjoy it. The overall theme is that to be a good person you must be good for goodness sake. His argument for this is summarized by James Rachels as follows:. After all, it is not as though people would stop believing each other simply because it is known that people lie when doing so will save lives. A different approach based on homotopy theory but with closed connections with higher-dimensional categories has been proposed by Voevodsky et al. See the book Homotopy Type Theory , by Awodey et al. It is an established fact that category theory is employed to study logic and philosophy.

Indeed, categorical logic, the study of logic by categorical means, has been under way for about 40 years now and still vigorous. Some of the philosophically relevant results obtained in categorical logic are:. Categorical tools in logic offer considerable flexibility, as is illustrated by the fact that almost all the surprising results of constructive and intuitionistic mathematics can be modeled in a proper categorical setting.

At the same time, the standard set-theoretic notions, e. Thus, categorical logic has roots in logic as it was developed in the twentieth century, while at the same time providing a powerful and novel framework with numerous links to other parts of mathematics. Category theory also bears on more general philosophical questions. From the foregoing disussion, it should be obvious that category theory and categorical logic ought to have an impact on almost all issues arising in philosophy of logic: from the nature of identity criteria to the question of alternative logics, category theory always sheds a new light on these topics. Ellerman has bravely attempted to show that category theory constitutes a theory of universals, one having properties radically different from set theory, which is also seen as a theory of universals.

In particular, they have attempted to clarify the relationships between count nouns and mass terms. Other researchers are using category theory to study complex systems, cognitive neural networks, and analogies. Finally, philosophers of science have turned to category theory to shed a new light on issues related to structuralism in science. Category theory offers thus many philosophical challenges, challenges which will hopefully be taken up in years to come. Marquis umontreal. General Definitions, Examples and Applications 1.

Brief Historical Sketch 3. Bibliography Readers may find the following useful: Programmatic Reading Guide The citations in this guide and in the text above can all be found in the list below. Abramsky, S. Adamek, J. Arzi-Gonczaworski, Z. Awodey, S. Baez, J. Halvorson ed. Coecke ed. Baianu, I. Bain, J. Barr, M. Batanin, M. Bell, J. Gabbay, F. Guenthner eds.

Gabbay, A. Kanamori, J. Woods eds. Birkoff, G. Blass, A. Blute, R. Ehrhard, P. Ruet, J-Y. Girard, P. Scott eds. Boileau, A. Borceux, F. Brading, K. Brown, R. Sica ed. Brunetti, R. Buchsbaum, D. Bunge, M. Caramello, O. Carter, J. Cisinski, J. Cockett, J. Landry ed. Coecke, B. Couture, J. Crole, R. De Toffoli, S. Ehresmann, A. Eilenberg, S. Ellerman, D. Eva, B. Feferman, S. Butts ed. Link ed. Freyd, P. Theories of Models , Amsterdam: North Holland, — Galli, A.

Ghilardi, S. Goldblatt, R. Grothendieck, A. Hatcher, W. Healy, M. Gori, S-I. Amari, C. Giles, V. Piuri eds. Hellman, G. Sommaruga ed. Hermida, C. Heunen, C. Hyland, J. Isham, C. Jacobs, B. Johnstone, P. Joyal, A. Kan, D. Kishida, K. Kock, A. La Palme Reyes, M. Lal, R. Lambek, J. Agassi and R. Cohen eds. Lam, V. Landry, E. Rickles eds. Lawvere, F. Leinster, T. Linnebo, O. Logan, S. Lurie, J. MacNamara, J. Majid, S. Makkai, M. Marquis, J. Wedekind eds. II, B. Assessing philosophy of logic and mathematics today , J. Heinzmann, Ph. Nabonnand, M. Rebuschi, H. Visser eds. Schroeder-Heister, et al. McLarty, C. After introducing this third formulation, Kant introduces a distinction between autonomy literally: self-law-giving and heteronomy literally: other-law-giving.

This third formulation makes it clear that the categorical imperative requires autonomy. It is not enough that the right conduct be followed, but that one also demands that conduct of oneself. Act according to maxims of a universally legislating member of a merely possible kingdom of ends. In the Groundwork , Kant goes on to formulate the categorical imperative in a number of ways following the first three; however, because Kant himself claims that there are only three principles, [10] little attention has been given to these other formulations. Moreover, they are often easily assimilated to the first three formulations, as Kant takes himself to be explicitly summarizing these earlier principles.

There is, however, another formulation that has received additional attention as it appears to introduce a social dimension into Kant's thought. This is the formulation of the "Kingdom of Ends. Because a truly autonomous will would not be subjugated to any interest, it would only be subject to those laws it makes for itself—but it must also regard those laws as if they would be bound to others, or they would not be universalizable, and hence they would not be laws of conduct at all. Thus, Kant presents the notion of the hypothetical Kingdom of Ends of which he suggests all people should consider themselves never solely as means but always as ends. We ought to act only by maxims that would harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends.

We have perfect duty not to act by maxims that create incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs when we attempt to universalize them, and we have imperfect duty not to act by maxims that lead to unstable or greatly undesirable states of affairs. Although Kant was intensely critical of the use of examples as moral yardsticks , as they tend to rely on our moral intuitions feelings rather than our rational powers, this section explores some applications of the categorical imperative for illustrative purposes.

Kant asserted that lying , or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In Groundwork , Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability [ clarify ] and thus contradicts perfect duty.

With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. In each case, the proposed action becomes inconceivable in a world where the maxim exists as law. In a world where no one would lend money, seeking to borrow money in the manner originally imagined is inconceivable. In a world where no one trusts one another, the same is true about manipulative lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in itself. The theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.

Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty as interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing victim, it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no person can consent to theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft.

Because the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty. In the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals , Kant applies his categorical imperative to the issue of suicide motivated by a sickness of life: [12]. A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would not be contrary to his duty to himself.

Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. There only remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. One sees at once that a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.

Kant also applies the categorical imperative in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals on the subject of "failing to cultivate one's talents. The man asks himself how the universality of such a thing works. While Kant agrees that a society could subsist if everyone did nothing, he notes that the man would have no pleasures to enjoy, for if everyone let their talents go to waste, there would be no one to create luxuries that created this theoretical situation in the first place.

Not only that, but cultivating one's talents is a duty to oneself. Thus, it is not willed to make laziness universal, and a rational being has imperfect duty to cultivate its talents. Kant concludes in the Groundwork :. For as a rational being he necessarily wills that all his faculties should be developed, inasmuch as they are given him for all sorts of possible purposes. Kant's last application of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals is of charity. He proposes a fourth man who finds his own life fine but sees other people struggling with life and who ponders the outcome of doing nothing to help those in need while not envying them or accepting anything from them.

While Kant admits that humanity could subsist and admits it could possibly perform better if this were universal, he states:. But even though it is possible that a universal law of nature could subsist in accordance with that maxim, still it is impossible to will that such a principle should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will that resolved in this way would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases might often arise in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others and in which he would deprive himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he wants for himself.

Kant derived a prohibition against cruelty to animals by arguing that such cruelty is a violation of a duty in relation to oneself. According to Kant, man has the imperfect duty to strengthen the feeling of compassion, since this feeling promotes morality in relation to other human beings. However, cruelty to animals deadens the feeling of compassion in man. Therefore, man is obliged not to treat animals brutally. As Hannah Arendt wrote in her book on the trial, Eichmann declared "with great emphasis that he had lived his whole life Eichmann acknowledged he did not "live entirely according to it, although I would like to do so.

Deborah Lipstadt , in her book on the trial, takes this as evidence that evil is not banal , but is in fact self-aware [ citation needed ]. Pope Francis , in his encyclical , applies the first formulation of the universalizability principle to the issue of consumption: [17]. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.

One form of the categorical imperative is superrationality. Unlike in conventional game theory, a superrational player will act as if all other players are superrational too and that a superrational agent will always come up with the same strategy as any other superrational agent when facing the same problem. The first formulation of the categorical imperative appears similar to the Golden Rule. In its negative form , the rule prescribes: "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.

Claiming that Ken Binmore thought so as well, Peter Corning suggests that: [23]. Kant's objection to the Golden Rule is especially suspect because the categorical imperative CI sounds a lot like a paraphrase, or perhaps a close cousin, of the same fundamental idea. In effect, it says that you should act toward others in ways that you would want everyone else to act toward others, yourself included presumably. Calling it a universal law does not materially improve on the basic concept.

Kant himself did not think so in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Rather, the categorical imperative is an attempt to identify a purely formal and necessarily universally binding rule on all rational agents. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, is neither purely formal nor necessarily universally binding. It is "empirical" in the sense that applying it depends on providing content, such as, "If you don't want others to hit you, then don't hit them. One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the French philosopher Benjamin Constant , who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must if asked tell a known murderer the location of his prey.

In this reply, Kant agreed with Constant's inference, that from Kant's own premises one must infer a moral duty not to lie to a murderer. Kant denied that such an inference indicates any weakness in his premises: not lying to the murderer is required because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences. He claimed that because lying to the murderer would treat him as a mere means to another end, the lie denies the rationality of another person, and therefore denies the possibility of there being free rational action at all. This lie results in a contradiction in conception [ clarify ] and therefore the lie is in conflict with duty.

The steps here are as follows:. SPACE gets the money and spends it on its Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study programs. A different approach based on homotopy theory but with closed connections with higher-dimensional Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study has been proposed by Voevodsky et al. Closely connected Homers Crime In A Rose For Emily this formulation is the law of nature formulation. Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study categorical Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study has three Categorical Imperative Theory: A Case Study formulations.

Current Viewers: