"Maxims" and "imperatives. Long road to Kant ...

I. Kant believed that man, as a moral being, should act in such a way as if he always acted as a legislator in the universal kingdom of goals. Morality, according to I. Kant, generally consists in the subordination of their actions to the principle of reason. This imperative is categorical, not hypothetical, because it does not require proof and speaks of a pure goal to which a person strives for its own sake.

The term “categorical” in Kant means judgments that do not contain any conditions or alternatives, only an unambiguous connection of concepts, and the idea of ought is contained in the term “imperative”. In everyday speech, we say "categorical", already implying obligation. The categorical imperative, expressing the obligation in relation to certain actions, is a morally practical law. And since obligation contains not only practical necessity (such as is expressed by the law in general), but also coercion, then such an imperative is either a permissive or a forbidding law, after the performance or non-performance is presented as a duty. Therefore, a moral law is a provision containing a categorical imperative (command). "

The moral law, according to Kant, is embedded in the soul and conscience of every person. I. Kant consistently pursues the idea that everything moral, which does not depend on practical benefits, or on the prescriptions of society, or on the will of God, acquires the character of a duty for a person. This means that a person should not think about the factors that allow or prevent him to perform moral actions. If a person has a moral law in his soul, then he will be able to withstand external pressure and remain true to his ideals and values. If the moral law in his soul is replaced by the requirements of social expediency, ideology or politics, then a person's actions may be incompatible with the requirements of duty.

In addition to the categorical, I. Kant distinguishes non-categorical imperatives. All non-categorical imperatives are hypothetical, they are all conditional, since they require skills (prescribe skills). A hypothetical imperative is valid only under certain conditions; it refers to actions when the goal and means are known. Often, hypothetical imperatives take the form of "technical", since, based on the goal, they prescribe the need to perform the actions necessary for its implementation. For example, if a person wants to have a garden, he must plant trees and flowers; if a person wants to form a positive attitude towards himself, he must act in accordance with the norms of public morality.

Imperatives I. Kant - both categorical and hypothetical orient people to free activity and disinterested communication of people in society. In his opinion, the assessment of human actions and activities, including from the point of view of following imperatives, is possible only if the individual has freedom and can make his own choice of action. In the absence of free will, actions can be substantively normative, but we can no longer talk about ought.

In the ethics of I. Kant, the concept is also widely used maxims(from lat. maxima- guilt, argument, argument, rule, dictum, aphorism) - the subjective principle of will (free will). This is a rule of behavior or a basic principle by which a person is guided in his actions. It contains rule of thumb, which the mind determines in accordance with the conditions of the subject (most often with his ignorance or with his inclinations), and, therefore, is the basis according to which the subject acts. Accordingly, the maxim has a narrower character than the imperative, and is more subjective.

The maxim can be formed on the basis of the imperative. In this case, the personality, having assimilated the content contained in it, comprehends it, verifies it, proves to itself its consistency and the need to comply with the prescription contained in the imperative, translates it into its individual language, i.e. will reformulate using familiar words and phrases. If the person agrees with the requirement, she includes it in the system of her own moral rules. In this case, the imperative becomes a personal moral principle - a maxim.

Maxima can be present in the structure of individual morality, regardless of the person's knowledge of imperatives. This, however, does not mean that maxims in terms of content and meaning negate imperatives. For example, a significant number of people in one way or another agree with the so-called "golden rule of morality": "Do what you want people to do with you." In a simple and accessible form, it carries the same idea as one of Kant's categorical imperatives. The meaning of this formulation is repeated many times in Russian proverbs: “As it comes around, it will respond”; "Don't dig a hole for another - you will fall into it yourself", etc. Few know the wording of the imperatives of I. Kant, but the proverbs are familiar and understandable to many. And naturally, most people will rather be guided by maxims expressed in understandable and accessible words, rather than use the philosophical formulations of Kant.

Not every maxim has moral value. As maxims, i.e. personal moral principles, a person can use any ideas, including those that are rejected by most people. And Kant, realizing this, proposes to be guided only by such maxims that can be guided by each person in relation to everyone and everyone, while expecting a similar attitude towards himself.

The concept of "discipline" in deontology

Discipline (lat. discipline!- consistency, severity) - a certain order of behavior of people that meets the prevailing norms of law and morality in society or the requirements of any group (organization). In general, the discipline is necessary condition the normal existence of society; thanks to it, people's behavior takes on an orderly nature, which ensures collective activity and functioning social organizations... Society always has compulsory discipline - socially necessary order which every person must adhere to and special discipline- mandatory only for members of certain groups (labor, party, military, etc. discipline).

Distinguish between discipline for coercion, discipline for reasons of benefit and internal. Discipline under duress observed by a person under pressure from external factors (for example, out of fear of punishment). Discipline for reasons of benefit can be observed counting on moral or material compensation, whatever it may be expressed in. These two types of discipline show similarities in that they are not conditioned by an internal need of a person, but are based on positive or negative sanctions. In the absence or lack of effectiveness of the system of sanctions, a person who observes discipline by coercion or for reasons of benefit may exhibit behavior that is significantly different from the norm. This makes it necessary to develop and implement formal and informal controls. If social or professional norms do not become internal incentives for the actions of members of society or a professional group, various kinds of behavioral deviations arise, which either must be regulated by means of social control mechanisms, or, in the absence of an effective system of control and regulation, can lead to changes and destruction of existing norms, replacing them with others.

Internal discipline (self-discipline) presupposes deep assimilation (internalization) by members of a society or a group of norms that regulate their behavior. This discipline is maintained without external sanctions or coercive measures. The disciplined person has an inner urge to follow. accepted standards behavior and in case of non-observance experiences remorse, guilt, etc. He is able to independently control his behavior and does not need external controlling subjects and objects.

The optimal is the formation of discipline as self-discipline, which would make it possible to divert resources to a lesser extent to control the behavior of members of a society or group. But in the final analysis, discipline is determined by the degree to which the personal interests of members of society are combined, their needs and the socially or professionally determined norms of behavior they fulfill. Therefore, ensuring discipline through self-discipline alone is not possible. Typically, all kinds of discipline are present in a society or community; we can only talk about their combination. Equally, each individual person, depending on his personal qualities and situations can be guided by considerations of gain or fear of possible punishment, as well as an internal need to maintain discipline.

Society, as well as the professional group, is always faced with the problem of discipline. Without discipline or with a low level of discipline, a society or community cannot function and develop normally. They are characterized by low performance results, weakening of important social and professional ties, unpredictability of decisions and actions, chaos. Unfortunately, most people do not associate in their minds the lack of discipline (self-discipline) and the lack of success in activities, which leads them to new failures.

However, excessively tough discipline can also be harmful, since in these conditions members of society or a professional group are deprived of their creative initiative, and the system itself - society, profession - loses the necessary flexibility and slows down the pace of development. For the most part, there is “discipline for discipline”. It lacks or weakly expressed objective content in which it would act as a directly useful beginning for the goals of an individual (as well as for the whole society or community). The priority will be given to the external indicators of discipline: timely arrival and departure from work, timely reporting on work, while the content of the activity and its organization, with this approach, remain unaddressed. As a rule, the result of this approach is a decrease in the actual efficiency in practice, while from the external, formal, side and in the reports, everything looks perfect. Therefore, an excessive, unjustified passion for discipline can also lead to a negative (or at least insufficiently complete) end result of activity.

Discipline is connecting link between the attitude and the activity and therefore represents one of the decisive components of the activity on which its success depends. It is only by chance, in the absence of discipline, that success can be achieved. However, this very concept often causes a negative (sometimes hidden) reaction, since in the consciousness of the individual in this regard, images associated with the suppression of their own will and freedom may arise. Despite this, society seeks to enforce discipline through a variety of regulatory mechanisms, from general laws to private norms.

In modern Russia, there has been a transition to a market economy society, which inevitably entailed the appropriation by citizens of greater freedom and a significant change in the content of labor discipline and the motives for its strengthening. Currently, according to the Constitution Russian Federation Russian citizens are exempt from the obligation to breastfeed and cannot be forced to work. And although the phrase "labor discipline" is often associated in the public consciousness with the socialist past, it should be noted that the condition of any joint labor regardless of the branch of the economy, organizational and legal forms and socio-economic relations of society in which it takes place, is labor discipline.

In professional activity great importance has the observance of labor and professional discipline. Usually under labor discipline (labor discipline) mean strict adherence to the established order in labor collective... It assumes that all employees must comply with the rules of conduct determined in accordance with Labor Code RF, other federal laws, collective bargaining agreements, agreements, local regulations, an employment contract. Labor discipline provides for timely arrival at work, compliance with the established duration of the working day, rational use time for the most productive work, accurate execution of the orders of the administration. Labor discipline is an essential part professional discipline, which is a system of necessary requirements for the individual and collective activity of specialists, not only in terms of its regulations, but also in terms of content. Professional discipline includes the requirements for compliance not only with laws and other regulatory legal acts, but also with technologies, safety rules, etc.

Discipline is unique in the conditions of irregular working hours. As a rule, in these cases less attention is paid to the formal indicators of discipline associated with the presence in the workplace. One of the main indicators is performing discipline, within the framework of which the performer is required to timely perform the work as a whole and its individual stages. In this case, the formal discipline (associated in most cases with the format following established rules), becomes not so important, but increased attention is paid to the substantive part of the activity.

Professional ethics, which includes deontology as the doctrine of duty and proper behavior, is one of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring discipline in professional activity. Professional ethics, requiring from the personality of a specialist the presence of volitional qualities, constant self-improvement, recognizes the discipline due to external factors... However, discipline is conscious, internal (self-discipline) is preferable. Conscious discipline of a specialist develops in the process of conscious, creative professional activity, as a result of the process of professional education and self-education, awareness of the importance of discipline in life and professional activity. Most effective means its strengthening are social control, supervision, material and moral stimulation.

Thus, in the system of categories and concepts of deontology, its structure is recreated as an integral phenomenon that has many aspects. The basis of such a system is formed by the categories of duty, responsibility and obligation, which reflect the three main aspects of obligation:

The way of regulating this activity of deontology, expressed in the aggregate social connections directing and controlling individual and collective behavior;

Ideal reflection of activities and relationships in the mind and their specific justification by the need to fulfill duty.

Practical basics
provisions ", containing a general definition
moral will, Kant divided into "maxims"
and "laws". Maxima, in Kant's understanding, is
The "subjective principle of volition" significant for the will
of a given individual, and the law is “an objective
ny "- in the sense of universality - the principle of will
niya, which is valid for the will of every reasonable
society. Kant calls such a law "imperative"
explaining that the imperative is “a rule that
characterized by duty, expressing
objective compulsion to act ... ". Imperatives,
in turn, are divided by Kant into "hypothetical",
the execution of which is associated with the presence of a certain
conditions, and "categorical", which are obligatory
are valid under all conditions and, therefore, have the force of non-
depending on any conditions. Kant further
clarifies that “there is only one categorical
imperative "as the highest law of morality.
"Categorical imperative". Installation on auto-
mission of moral will, which demanded exclusion from
her motivations of everything "heteronomous", led to the fact that
the categorical imperative also had to determine
to adhere only to moral "conformity to law".
“This means: I should always do this only,
so that I can also wish for the transformation of my mac-
Sims into universal law. " In the final form, the formulas
the definition of the categorical imperative, modified
and perfected, reads: "Do so that mac-
sim of your will could at the same time have power
the principle of universal legislation ”. Absence
indications of exactly what maxims are capable of
act as the principles of the universal moral
"Legislation", Kant considered not a disadvantage,
but the great advantage of the above formulation,
indicating that the categorical imperative
is, as it befits to be, "pure" ap-
prior law and does not include anything "empirical
richeskogo ". Such "purity" meant, according to Kant,
that the categorical imperative determines - according to
in accordance with the requirements of a priori - only a form of
actions, but says nothing about their content
zhania. Kant was convinced that “if reasonable
79
the being must think of its maxims as
practical universal laws, then it can think
imagine them only as such principles that contain
in itself the determining basis of the will not according to matter,
but only in form "(39. 4/1. 331, 332, 260, 238, 347,
342). Thus, the Kantian understanding of the category
an imperative is deliberately presented as
formalistic. Formalism - along with a priori
mom and anti-eudemonistic rigorism - one of the
the main essential features of the Kantian understanding
moral law.
But consistently carry out Kant's formalism all
he could not, when developing his ethical concept.
Certain and, moreover, important content
even in the considered formulations of the categories
ricical imperative. First, they include
the thought of the value primacy of the general
change to the individual, which means denial
the possibilities of ethical individualism and pluralism
ma, inevitably leading to the relativization of moral
norms. Secondly, they assume moral
equality of people who are all equally
subject to a single moral law, from the point of view
which is worthy of condemnation of anyone else
claims to consider oneself not morally bound
mi norms in relations with "subordinate". These co-
meaningful implications of the first formulations of the
the categorical imperative found a clear expression
in its subsequent formulations, which
introduced by Kant in each of his ethical works
niy. Expressed in the categorical imperative of the
new to "conformity" to the maxims of the will always
supplemented in the Kantian concept of "practical
mind "insisting on the obligation to act
“So that you always treat humanity and
in his own person, and in the face of everyone else as well as to the
whether and never would treat him only as
to the means ”(39.4/1.270). In this formulation, the
the mountain imperative that emphasized the need for
the ability to treat all people without distinction as
to self-worth individuals, there was an implicit
content that was to assert
the principle of social equality.
The named principle had an antifeudal direction.
intelligence and expressed the interests primarily of the German
80
th burghers. What Kant gave to this expression
abstract ethical form, corresponded to
as K. Marx and F. Engels explained, “powerlessness,
the oppression and squalor of the German burghers ... ".
The founders of Marxism pointed out that they were
the rise of the German bourgeoisie in late XVIII v. clearly "reflect
is quoted in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason:
in contrast to the economically dominant English
bourgeoisie and conquering political domination
the French bourgeoisie, "the powerless German bureaucrats
the Geres only reached "goodwill", "even if it
remains completely ineffectual ... ”(1. 3. 182).
A set of moral obligations. In "Metafi-
zike of morals "Kant considered it necessary in detail
and very thoroughly characterize the complex
the main moral obligations of a person, which means
the beginning of the actual departure from its former simplified
opinion that “even the most ordinary reason
without any indication can decide which form of mac-
sims are suitable for universal legislation and
there is no kay ”(39. 4/1. 342). Starting with the transfer of obligatory
stey "in relation to himself", Kant put on
the first place is a person's duty to take care of the preservation
your life and, accordingly, health. Suicide-
state and all kinds of undermining by a person of his
roving, including through drunkenness and gluttony,
Kant referred to vices. Further, Kant called good
details of truthfulness, honesty, sincerity, good
news, self-dignity, which is opposed
embodied the vices of lies and servility, and here
a progressive social
the correctness of Kantian ethical views. From dol-
ha "in regard to human dignity in us"
followed, according to Kant, such socially important
sania: "Do not become a slave of a person", "... do not
let the unpunished trampling on your friend's rights
mi "," ... kneeling and servility before
a person is unworthy of a person in all cases. " Important
Kant attached the greatest importance to the presence and functional
ning a person's conscience as necessary for
the morality of the "inner court". To the decrees
duty, Kant attributed "moral self-knowledge,
rushing to penetrate into difficult-to-measure depths
(abyss) of the heart. " It is worth noting that the opposite
Noah "a person's duty to himself" Kant considered
81
a tendency to destroy beauty in the inanimate
and living nature, especially the one that is expressed
in cruelty to animals. Debt
a person before himself was turned on "development
(cultura) of their natural powers (spiritual, mental
and bodily) ... "(39. 4/2. 375, 380, 384).
The two main responsibilities of people in relation to
Kant regarded each other as love and respect. This
he interpreted love as goodwill that generates
beneficence, beneficence unrelated to calculation
for any benefit for yourself. Determining goodwill
as “pleasure from happiness (well-being) of another
gih ", Kant pointed out that" the duty of every person is
to do good, that is, to help as much as possible
people and contribute to their happiness, not hoping to
to give some kind of reward for this. " The only
noisy, but necessary "compensation" for the good deed
is gratitude from the person to whom it is
was rendered - this is a "sacred duty", "violation
which (as a shameful example) can in fact
to destroy the moral motive of good deeds. "
Kant also considered it a moral duty to
message understood as compassion for other people
in their misfortunes and as a sharing of their joys. Way-
the will and the will “to share with each other their feelings
properties "Kant regarded as equally essential
a new manifestation of philanthropy, as a good deed
with reciprocal gratitude. The listed goodness
bodies, Kant opposed non-
benevolence, ingratitude and gloating,
a common feature of which is misanthropy
honor. Qualification of philanthropy as the main pre-
wandering, and misanthropy as the main
vice filled Kant's ethical concept highly
kim humanistic meaning. It greatly softened
rigorism of the first interpretations of "practical reason"
and put an obstacle in the way of antihumanism
interpretation of this rigorism. Vices, resisting
owing a debt of respect to other people, Kant considered
arrogance, backbiting and bullying. In morally
oriented friendship, Kant saw the "union of two
people based on mutual love and respect ",
declaring that this kind of “friendship between people is
their duty. " Kant specified that “moral friendship ...-
it is complete trust between two people in disclosure
82
in front of each other secret thoughts and experiences,
as much as possible subject to mutual respect
zhenia ". In the Kantian understanding of the need
friendship, it is not difficult to notice the strong moments of social
motivation characteristic of society,
in which there is no freedom of thought and speech. By
Cantu, it is in friendship that one can be satisfied
the human need to share -
among other things secret - with your thoughts "about
government, about religion ", not fearing that
knowledge in these matters can be used in
evil to him. In conclusion, Kant pointed to the "virtue
whether circumambulation ":" pleasantness in society ", polite
goodness, tolerance, gentleness, hospitality
(39. 4/2. 393, 396, 398, 415, 417).
The inclusion in the "metaphysics of morality"
a wide range of virtues that eliminated de-
lack of content in the first interpretations by Kant
moral law, in fact, eroded the thesis
about its necessary a priori and formality. It-
This was also facilitated by the fact that Kant came to understand
the fact that in many specific situations choice
a line of conduct that is moral is by no means
not as easy as it seemed at first, and sometimes it turns out
even quite complicated. In relation to almost
each moral obligation, Kant put “ka-
zuistic questions ", which remain for the most part
he has no answers and makes the reader independent
search for moral truth.
Ethical apriorism was also undermined by the fact that
Kant increasingly understood the need for
cultivating a person his “practical
reason "in the name of achieving moral perfection
state. Considering it impossible to confine ourselves to that “kind
will ", which people find in themselves as a kind of
ness, Kant set before each person the task of
“To raise the culture of their will to the purest level
wandering mindset when the law becomes
also the motive of his actions consistent with the duty
kov ... ". According to Kant, “virtue should be
acquired (she is not born) ", due to which" virtue
bodies can and should be taught ", starting this business
with the instruction of a child in the "moral catechism"
(39.4/2.321, 421, 423). Kant's assertions that
view of the formation of virtues by moral
83
education is consistent with the thesis of a priori
moral law, are unsubstantiated and remain un-
reasonable assurances.
In the course of Kant's deployment of his ethical con-
the concept has undergone erosion and its intrinsic
chale strict anti-eudemonism, which consisted in the principle
cipalistic denial of justification
morality by the pursuit of happiness. In "Metaphysics of disposition
property "Kant pointed out that only" one's own
happiness "cannot be regarded as a moral duty
(moreover, with the exception of the necessary care for self-
preservation), and "someone else's happiness" - in the sense of contributing
vaniya him - just such a duty for ka-
the person you want. Double duty and double moral
the goal of a person is “his own perfection and sen-
the same happiness. " This formula condemned self-centeredness.
eudemonism, but justified as a moral
human efforts aimed at
to contribute to the happiness of all people. On-
filling Kantian ethics with eudemonistic principles
novelties were inextricably linked with the fact that all the pain
clarity and awareness acquired her human
static orientation, which was expressed in the following
the final formulation of the categorical im-
rativa: “A person is a goal both for himself and
and for others. " According to Kant, this is exactly how it should be understood
mother "the highest principle of the doctrine of virtue", according to
now: “Act in accordance with such a maxim of goals,
which can be a universal requirement for everyone
horse "(39. 4/2. 319, 330).
All considered clarifications, additions and corrections
the directives introduced by Kant into the ethical concept
tion, revealed its fundamental relationship with the teachings
about the morality of English and French enlightenment
eighteenth century and expressed a common progressive for them
new social orientation. Under these conditions, co-
stored thesis about the a priori moral law
on, due to the needs of the "critical philo-
sophia "as a system, found itself in its rational
aspect in an inadequate form of justification for
beliefs about the unshakable value of moral standards
and the inadmissibility of neglecting them for the sake of selfish
interests (for fear of being subjected to all
possible adversity - from the loss of everyday well-being
radiation to physical torment, threatening to undermine
84
health and death). In these adversities, Kant saw
the greatest temptation to violate your duty
(39. 4/2. 322) and by means of a priori
eliminate this temptation. Freedom of "good will"
Kant considered as a necessary mediating
action link
in accordance with the moral law, overcoming
the strongest illegal pressure of empirical
the conditions in which a person lives.

Imperative (lat. imperatio - decree, command, imperatives - imperative) - demand, order, law. According to I. Kant, this is a practical rule, a command or a prohibition, thanks to which a random act in itself becomes necessary.

In the Critique of Practical Reason, this is a universally valid moral precept, as opposed to a personal principle (maxim). An imperative is a rule that expresses an obligation. In general, the imperative of behavior is an ideal principle of the relationship between the collective and the individual, the dominance of which in the stereotype of behavior is associated with the semantic parameters of the collective.

I. Kant read that the imperative differs from the practical law in that this law makes it obvious that an action is necessary, but does not take into account whether this action is inherently inherently inherent in the acting subject (say, some holy being), or whether it (like a human) is random; for where the former is present, there is no place for the imperative. An imperative is a rule, the idea of which makes a subjectively random act necessary; it is a command formula. All imperatives, according to I. Kant, are expressed through obligation.

I. Kant proceeded from the complex concept of practice, expressed by three different kinds of practical values: skill, prudence and wisdom. Accordingly, each of them underlies the classification of types of human activity - technical, pragmatic, moral. On the basis of this understanding of practice, I. Kant divides the types of good into problematic, pragmatic and moral, and from this triad the difference between hypothetical, practical and categorical imperatives is derived. Skill requires a pragmatic dimension of practice, it is a kind of "tactical" skill aimed at one's own benefit. Wisdom is aimed at the implementation of the moral law, since the imperative of morality contains the restrictive conditions of all imperatives of prudence.

Considering the types of imperatives, I. Kant emphasizes the categorical (unconditional) imperative - such an imperative that thinks and makes an act necessary not indirectly through the idea of the goal to which the act can lead, but only through only one idea of the act itself (about its form), it is reasonable, directly as an objectively necessary act. The categorical imperative is an unconditional principle of behavior that expresses an unconditional, unswerving obligation. It establishes the form and principle to be followed in behavior. An act is considered moral if it is itself a goal and can become a model for universal legislation.

Imperatives of this kind can be cited as examples only by that practical teaching that prescribes obligatoriness, that is, the teaching of morality is ethics. The categorical imperative reflects the essence of morality. The categorical imperative says nothing about either the end or the means, but only about the form of an act, by which one can judge its morality. This is a pure obligation, based on the idea of the free will of each person as a reasonable and responsible person.

The highest moral law of Kant has several formulations.

Act according to such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time wish it to become a universal law.

The moral law, according to I. Kant, does not contain anything except the general expediency of actions, as a result of which the categorical imperative cannot be anything other than a requirement for the human will to be guided by this law. This imperative substantively repeats the "golden rule" of morality, demanding from each individual such actions, relations, actions that, being implemented by other individuals in relation to himself, would bring good or, at least, would not cause damage. In other words, I. Kant proposes to make a choice of actions, putting oneself in the place of a person or a group in relation to which they are performed.

Do so that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, the same way as you treat the goal, and never treat it only as a means.

This imperative is the supreme principle of the doctrine of virtue. He prescribes to recognize a person, all of humanity as the highest value and an end in itself. This imperative should be fulfilled not for some other purpose, but for its own sake, and because it does not need any proof. It is based on the idea that intelligent nature exists as a goal in itself. In other words, I. Kant proposes to take into account the fact that each person is a goal for himself, while other people can be viewed by him as a means used to achieve his goals. But, using the help of other individuals to achieve their own goals, one should not forget that each of them has his own goals and each of them has the right to treat himself not only as a means of achieving a goal, but also as a goal.

Do so that the maxim of your will can at the same time have the force of the principle of universal legislation.

In the ethics of I. Kant, the concept is also widely used maxims(from lat. maxima - guilt, argument, argument, rule, dictum, aphorism) - the subjective principle of will (free will). This is a rule of behavior or a basic principle by which a person is guided in his actions. It contains a practical rule that the mind determines in accordance with the conditions of the subject (most often with his ignorance or with his inclinations), and, therefore, there is a fundamental principle according to which the subject acts. Accordingly, the maxim has a narrower character than the imperative, and is more subjective.

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE- in Kant's ethics, a synonym for a moral imperative, the designation of a moral norm as formally independent in its foundations from any actual conditions of human will and therefore unconditionally obligatory for execution for any composition of our actual goals. It is opposed to the hypothetical imperative as a conditional form of volition, in which the moral obligation of a given action is based on the premise of the subject's actual or possible desire. In contrast to the hypothetical imperative, the categorical imperative expresses the pure rule-making of the moral reason. The criterion for the legitimacy of desire is, therefore, in the possibility for this desire to become a necessary principle of the will in general and in nothing more: it must be possible to desire the subjective principle of one's will as the law of every will of a rational being. Kant's ethical formalism consists in an emphasis on the form of will; The "formula" of this acceptable form of will is precisely the categorical imperative, but not the law of morality. The categorical imperative prohibits making the value of volition dependent on its content, but thus by no means makes volition dependent on its own form: a will, subject to a categorical imperative, is subject to reason, but not to an object; the will, the form of the value determination of which is described by a categorical imperative, is moral for any specific content. The will, the determination of the value of which is determined by its content, is in any case extramoral, whatever its content: the value that drives it is not a moral value. This is the pathos of Kantian formalism.

Thus, the place of the subjective goal (for all its anthropological significance) in ethics is taken by an objective goal, valuable not because of the personal whim of the one who posits it, but completely independently of the content of any arbitrariness - a goal that is metaphysically original and therefore valuable in itself. This is, at least, the goal of preserving the very subject of all goals - man in his universal, or generic being, as humanity in man. This intelligent nature humanity and every rational living thing in general is a goal in itself. Therefore, the formal quality of any moral will should be such that in this will the value of reasonable humanity is always and necessarily the goal of this will itself and the condition for accepting all other goals, which, unlike this goal, have to be recognized as only subjective. So, the content or matter of moral goal-setting is determined from the correlation of real goal-setting with its modal form. This summing up is a judgment, and therefore the moral reality of the will is mediated by the moral capacity of judgment. The formal principle of this ability, which determines the attitude of its subject to the moral form of will (to the categorical imperative), gives the final definition of moral will, which recognizes the competence of the subject to obey only what he himself freely recognized as pure value (not to have other laws of personal will, except those certified by the court of conscience); ethical law from this position appears as a categorical imperative of autonomy (see. Autonomy and heteronomy ) Formulations of the categorical imperative: "Do so that the maxim of your will can at the same time have the force of the principle of universal legislation" ( Kant. Op. in 6 t., t. 4, h. 1.M., 1965, p. 347). “Do so that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of everyone else as well as a goal, and never treat it only as a means” (ibid., P. 270); each must relate to himself and to the other in accordance with the “idea of humanity as a goal in itself” (ibid.). For a will perfect in virtue, the categorical imperative, according to Kant himself, has no force: from the norm of will it turns into a description of the form of will that is natural for it. See lit. to Art. "Critique of Practical Reason" .

In the history of philosophy, there have been many attempts to understand what makes us behave ethically, why we should behave this way, and also to identify the principle on which our moral choice is based or could be based. The ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the most notable such attempts.

Preconditions for Kant's ethical theory

« Two things always fill the soul with new and ever stronger surprise and awe, the more often and longer we reflect on them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me » . - Immanuel Kant

In developing his ethical theory, Kant proceeds from two important premises. The first of them is characteristic of all world philosophy, up to the 19th century. It consists in the fact that there is such knowledge that is eternal, unchanging and universal.

The second premise is characteristic primarily of medieval religious philosophy and may seem very strange modern man... It consists in the fact that freedom is independence from any circumstances. Kant divides the natural world and the world of reason or the world of freedom, just as medieval theologians divide the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of heaven. In the natural world, man is subject to circumstances and therefore not free. He can become free only if he obeys the dictates of reason (whereas in the Middle Ages freedom consisted in submission to the will of God).

At the same time, the mind is busy with the knowledge of the truth. Accordingly, everything that reason can prescribe to us is something eternal, unchanging and universal, that is, something that everyone should do and always.

Three formulations of the categorical imperative

Proceeding from this, Kant develops an ethical system based on a categorical imperative - the requirement of reason to strictly follow the rules developed by it. This imperative has three, following from each other and complementary, formulations:

1. Do so that the maxim of your will could be a universal law.

This formulation is very simple and follows directly from the premises used by Kant. In fact, he calls on us, when performing this or that action, to imagine what it would be like if everyone did this and always. Moreover, the assessment of the action in this case will not be so much ethical or emotional: "I like it" or "not such a situation", but strictly logical. If, in the case when everyone behaves in the same way as we do, the action loses its meaning or becomes impossible, then it cannot be performed.

For example, before you lie, imagine that everyone will always lie. Then the lie will be meaningless, because everyone will know that what they are told is a lie. But at the same time, communication will be practically impossible.

Such a rule cannot serve as a guideline for the actions of all other intelligent beings, because it destroys itself - it is logically inconsistent.

2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in the person of everyone else the same way you treat the goal, and never treat it only as a means.

This formulation follows with much less obviousness from the premises indicated above, and at the same time it is both more trivial and more interesting than the first. It proceeds from the premise that reason is the source of any goal and value. And it is reason that is the target of the legislation that it develops.

Accordingly, the purpose of legislation is every bearer of reason, every rational being. If, on the basis of the first formulation of the categorical imperative, we took it as a rule to use others as means to achieve goals, and not as goals in themselves, then we would be faced with a paradox in which no one and nothing can serve as a source of any goal for which we could use certain means.

This imperative may seem rather trivial, since it is very similar to “ Golden Rule morality ": do what you want to be treated with you. However, it is interesting in that, firstly, like the first imperative, it is based on logic, and not on desire or value, like the “golden rule”. Secondly, if the "golden rule" suggests looking at one's own desires and acting towards others as if they were us, then the second formulation of the categorical imperative suggests realizing the value of someone else's life and desires without replacing them with our own.

It can be deduced from the "golden rule" that if you are, for example, a masochist, then you should hurt other people. Then, due to the clumsy universality of the prescriptions, it looks more like the first formulation of the categorical imperative. The second encourages us to think about the good of another person. Rather, she advises to replace oneself with others, while the "golden rule" suggests replacing the other with oneself.

3. The third categorical imperative is not as clearly expressed in the text as the first two. It was formulated by Kant as follows: “ the idea of the will of every intelligent being as the will that establishes universal laws».

Here, the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative are connected in an unobvious way. The first requires the establishment of universal objective laws. The second requires making the subject of these laws the target. The third actually repeats the premises and previous formulations.

The meaning of the third formulation is that the will of every rational being should serve as a source of legislation for itself. Only then will she be free to follow this legislation. In this case, only behavior dictated by reason is free. That is, any rational being must establish itself (and the world) laws and, by virtue of its rationality, desire these laws, since they are aimed at realizing the goals of these creatures dictated by the mind.

If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.

Preconditions for Kant's ethical theory

Three formulations of the categorical imperative

Read also