Categorical Imperative Debate
The Categorical Imperative Debate
In Honors English 10, we have been starting to talk about common philosophy concepts that you may see in Philosophy 101. We started talking about Immanuel Kant, a 18th century German Philospher whose main beliefs revolve around this idea of the Categorical Imperative. To put it simply, the Categorical Imperative is the belief that one should always live by a universal moral code /compass no matter what. Below are arguements that support that statement, as well as go against it.
Categorical Imperative Deabte- The Pro Arguement
Guest Writer- Raquel Svob
Moral compasses are not something you are born with. As you grow as a human, your moral compass will be shaped uniquely by your experiences and time on earth. When given the option between strictly living by your unique moral compass (such as what Immanuel Kant believes), or to be able to sway with it, I believe one should always be strict to it. Because what you believe to be moral, what you think is a good action, and what you think is a bad action, are all entirely up to you. So, in my opinion sway from your moral compass is not necessarily a tangible topic. When you devote yourself to being strict to what you have learned to be right and true, you become stronger and more stable as a person, furthering yourself to greater success in life.
One great thing about moral compasses and life in general is that nothing is set in stone. As you develop as a functioning human being and as the world moves around you, your perspective is inevitably bound to change. In turn your morality as well. Because we are given so much freedom as humans on earth it's important to establish something stable and constant that you can rely on when faced with issues big and small. But stable does not mean stuck
On a more surface level topic, as a young child you may hate bugs and squish them every chance you get. However, as you grow older you may start to see their importance and decide to be less cruel towards them. This doesn’t mean you must condemn yourself for killing bugs in the past, instead that your compass has shifted and you changed as a person because of what you have learned that has counteracted what you may have thought. While seemingly insignificant, changes in opinion on things as small as bugs prepare you for greater moral challenges in the future.
Everyone’s path in life varies in one way or another, so your friend may have been swarmed by ants as a child as forever as disdain and fear for them, but you maybe accidentally ate one and it’s more of a silly memory. This accounts for your ability to grow out of something based on your more minor experience. But for your friend they may never be able to look past it. The concept of differently shaped moral compasses alludes to the importance of staying to your beliefs, while taking others into consideration and the discussion of whether or not that will sway you. Why would you hate ants if you have had no bad experiences with them? And why would your friend completely forgive them?
Again, why I think that one should stick to their moral compass strictly because it's not a trap. Thinker deeper on it, it is the opposite. Consciously developing your morals allows for the stability mentioned before and for clarity on past events in your life. Whereas if you sway towards someone else rashly, what you have shaped for yourself crumbles and you may become weaker as a person. The importance of staying true to yourself and no one else will only promote more positivity because you are going through life as you should base on your experience and what you have decided for yourself. Yet, this only expands the possibility of change and growth as things settle permanently and as you become an adult.
Categorical Imperative Deabte- The Con Arguement
Guest Writer- Peter Thompson
Immanuel Kant’s belief of deontology is an interesting one, as he believes that people should strictly live by their own moral code no matter what. This is an extremely dangerous way of living. Many different people have extreme variations in what they believe to be right or wrong, and they often take those opinions to the extreme. Without any sort of overall standards for right and wrong there would be no penury of turmoil within the human community.
Because everyone’s viewpoints are so very different, to have a truly successful society people have to split the difference and accommodate for one another. They need to adjust to meet the needs of one another; the human race is a social species that needs interaction and communication to survive. They depend on each other. Without this aspect of humanity, people would solely rely on themselves, and this world would become so inwardly focused (more than it already is) to the point that there would be no more desire for community and need of dependency with one another. Humans would become so independent to the point of only living together to survive, as human contact would not be necessary or wanted.
There is a need of a balance in our society, where humans can come together and create a system that allows for guidance and justice. That sense of justice would be based on the overall human wish for peace. Due to the fact that humans wish to be in community with each other, this would not be too hard to facilitate. Of course, a system like this is already in place, as humans have a mutual agreement of what is overall right and wrong, that comes from the desire of love between one another.