A Challenge to the Categorical Imperative

8 Pages Posted: 14 May 2011 Last revised: 27 Apr 2020

See all articles by Vladimir Kruglyak

Vladimir Kruglyak

University of London; University of Westminster - School of Law

Date Written: May 12, 2011

Abstract

In this paper I am excogitating the Categorical Imperative (CI) procedure by questioning whether its principle has been created with profound knowledge of a society and of the human nature as well. I point out that the second universalization premise of the CI procedure is extremely exorbitant and far from the human's consciousness by virtue of which a mind makes up its decisions. Furthermore, the perception of the universal principle is my primary target in the process of disproving the viability of the CI procedure. I make a claim that Kant made a mistake in allowing one agent to elect a maxim of an act into the universal law and that he severely abused the human nature by separating the personality of an agent from her role in a society. By setting up these refutations, I hope to infer a relatively strong conclusion that Kant’s formulation of the CI procedure is perplexed in nature and requires reconciliation.

Keywords: morality, maxim, imperative, categorical imperative, Kant, philosophy, moral

Suggested Citation

Kruglyak, Vladimir, A Challenge to the Categorical Imperative (May 12, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1841063 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1841063

Vladimir Kruglyak (Contact Author)

University of London ( email )

Mile End Road
London, London E1 4NS
United Kingdom

University of Westminster - School of Law ( email )

4 Little Titchfield Street
London, England W1W 7UW
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
116
Abstract Views
1,005
Rank
430,305
PlumX Metrics