English Translation of “imperativo categórico” | The official Collins Spanish- English Dictionary online. Over English translations of Spanish words and. Moral y derecho en la filosofía de Kant: El imperativo categórico como punto de partida para establecer una vinculación entre derecho y moral. (Spanish. EL IMPERATIVO CATEGÓRICO DE KANT Immanuel Kant () Filósofo nacido en Königsberg actual Kaliningrado Rusia Filósofo de la.
|Published (Last):||18 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||2.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.67 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The categorical imperative German: Introduced in Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Moralsit may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action. According to Kant, sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an ctaegrico, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive.
He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action or inaction to be necessary. Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends.
Kant’s Moral Philosophy
A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:. Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his day, iant that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral imperatlvo or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations.
He presented a deontological moral system, based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as kkant alternative. The capacity that underlies deciding what is moral is called pure practical reasonwhich is contrasted with pure reason the capacity to know without having been shown and mere practical reason which allows us to interact with the world in cateegrico. Hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends.
They do not, however, tell us which ends we should choose. The typical dichotomy in choosing ends is between ends that are “right” e. Kant considered the “right” superior to the “good”; to him, the “good” was morally irrelevant.
In Kant’s view, a person cannot decide whether conduct is “right,” or moral, through empirical means. Such judgments must be reached a prioriusing pure practical reason. Reason, separate from all empirical experience, can determine the principle according to which all ends can be determined as moral.
It is this fundamental principle of moral reason that is known as the categorical imperative. Pure practical reason is the process of determining what ought to be done without reference to empirical contingent factors.
Moral questions are determined independent of reference to the particular subject posing them. It is because morality is determined by pure practical reason, rather than particular empirical or sensuous factors, that morality is universally valid. This moral universalism has come to be seen as the distinctive aspect of Kant’s moral philosophy and has had wide social impact in the legal and political concepts of human rights and equality. Kant viewed the human individual as a rationally self-conscious being with “impure” freedom of choice:.
The faculty of desire in accordance with concepts, in-so-far as the ground determining it to action lies within itself and not in its object, is called a faculty to “do or to refrain from doing as one pleases”.
The faculty of desire whose inner determining ground, hence even what pleases it, lies within the subject’s reason is called the will Wille. The will is therefore the faculty of desire considered not so much in relation to action as choice is but rather in relation to the ground determining choice in action.
The will itself, strictly speaking, has no determining ground; insofar as it can determine choice, it is instead practical reason itself. Insofar as reason can determine the faculty of desire as such, not only choice but also mere wish can be included under the will.
That choice which can be determined by pure reason is called free choice. That which can be determined only by inclination sensible impulse, stimulus would be animal choice arbitrium brutum. Human choice, however, is a choice that can indeed be affected but not determined by impulses, and is therefore of itself apart from an acquired proficiency of reason not pure but can still be determined to actions by pure will.
For a will to be considered “free”, we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free willthat is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself. Although Kant conceded that there could be no conceivable example of free will, because any example would only show us a will as it appears to us — as a subject of natural laws — he nevertheless argued against determinism.
He proposed that determinism is logically inconsistent: Applied to a case of the human will, a determinist would argue that the will does not have causal power and that something outside the will causes the will to act as it does. But this argument merely assumes what it sets categirco to prove: Secondly, Kant remarks that free will is inherently unknowable. Since even a free person could not possibly have knowledge of their own freedom, we cannot use our failure to find a proof for freedom as evidence for a lack of it.
The observable world could never contain an example of freedom because it would never show us a will as it appears to itselfbut only a will that is subject to natural laws imposed on it. But we do appear to ourselves as free. Therefore, he argued for the idea of transcendental freedom — that is, freedom as a presupposition of the question “what ought I to do?
From this step, Kant concludes that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity and desires of the person making categtico moral deliberation.
A moral maxim must imply absolute necessity, which is to say that it must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding the proposition, and could be applied to any rational being. This leads to the first formulation of the categorical imperative, sometimes called the “universalizability principle”: Closely connected with this formulation is the law of nature formulation.
Because laws of nature are by definition universal, Kant claims we may also express the categorical imperative as:. Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two sets of two subsets. The first division is between duties we have to ourselves versus duties we have to others. Kant also, however, introduces a distinction between “perfect” and “imperfect” duties,  which imperatvo more explanation:. According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them.
The moral proposition A: The notion of stealing presupposes the existence imperatico private property, but were A universalized, then there could be no private property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself. In general, perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being. Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason, but which allow for desires in how they are carried out in practice.
Because these depend somewhat on the subjective preferences of humankind, this duty is not as strong as a perfect duty, but it is still morally binding. As such, unlike perfect duties, you do not attract blame should you not complete an imperfect duty but you shall receive praise for it should you complete it, as you have gone imperatvo the basic duties and taken duty upon yourself.
Imperfect duties are circumstantial, meaning simply that you could not xategrico exist in a constant state of performing that duty.
Categorical imperative – Wikipedia
This is what truly differentiates between perfect and imperfect duties, because imperfect duties are those duties that categrrico never truly completed.
A particular example provided by Kant is the imperfect iimperativo to cultivate one’s own talents. Every rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. Most ends are of a subjective kind, because they need only be pursued if they are in line with some particular hypothetical imperative that a person may choose to adopt.
For an end to be objective, it would be necessary that we categorically pursue it. The free will is the source of all rational action.
But to treat it as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral action, imperqtivo would contradict the first formulation to claim impsrativo a person is merely a means to some other end, rather than always an end in themselves. By combining this formulation with the first, we learn that a person has perfect duty not to use the humanity of themselves or others merely as a means to some other end.
As a slave owner would be effectively asserting a moral right to own a person as a slave, they would be asserting a property right in another person.
El imperativo categórico de Inmanuel Kant. by Jennifer Delgadillo López on Prezi
But this would violate the categorical imperative because it denies the basis for there to be free rational action at all; it denies the status of a person as an end in themselves. One cannot, on Kant’s account, ever suppose a right to treat another person as a mere means to an end.
In the case of a slave owner, the slaves are being used to cultivate the owner’s fields the slaves acting as the means to ensure a sufficient harvest the end imperatiov of the owner. Ccategrico second formulation also leads to the imperfect duty to further the ends of ourselves and others.
If any person desires perfection in themselves or others, it would aknt their moral duty to seek that end for all people equally, so long as that end does not contradict perfect duty.
Kant kwnt that the first formulation lays out the objective conditions on the categorical imperative: Likewise, the second formulation lays out subjective conditions: A universal maxim, however, could only have this form if it were a maxim that each subject by himself endorsed. Because it cannot be something which externally constrains each subject’s activity, it must be a constraint that each subject has set for himself.
This leads to the concept of self -legislation. Each subject must through his own use of reason will maxims which have the form of universality, but do not impinge on the freedom of others: The result, of course, is a formulation of the categorical imperative that contains much of the same as the first two. We must will something that we could at the same time freely will of ourselves. After introducing this third formulation, Kant introduces a distinction between autonomy literally: This third formulation makes it clear that the categorical imperative requires autonomy.
It is not enough that the right conduct be followed, but categrjco one also categruco that conduct of oneself. In the GroundworkKant goes on to formulate the categorical imperative in a number of different ways following the first three; however, because Kant himself claims that there are only three principles,  imperatibo 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, one additional formulation that has received a lot of additional attention because 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 categrici should consider themselves never solely as means but always as ends. We ought to act only by maxims that would harmonize with a possible imperatuvo 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, because they tend to rely on our moral intuitions feelings rather than our rational powers, this section will explore 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 the GroundworkKant 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 and thus contradicts perfect duty.