FREE ESSAY ON CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant
The principle of private happiness states that an individual's prosperity is weighed in
proportion to that person's good 
conduct. In short, one's peace of mind is empirically measured by how virtuous one is
towards others and to himself. Kant's 
objection to ethical theories that use this idea emanates from the fact that it extends
human reason, one that determines good 
will and good conduct, outwards instead of inwards, reason being automatic, inherent in
an individual.
The above doctrine puts motive on virtues, meaning that one's good conduct is being used
as a means to an end. 
Morality is not established because the inner self is not developed out of one's duty but
instead, the necessity to have good 
will is for satisfying a particular purpose. Moreover, it is superficial, centered on a
human being's feelings and inclinations 
rather than pure reason. If one can not exercise rational behavior, one will form one's
beliefs out of sheer feelings and base 
one's opinion of others on this. Moral feeling is not an apt judge of right and wrong
because it lacks that uniform standard, 
one that is unbiased and not easily swayed by emotion. The fact that individuals are
different also implies that they have 
different basis and sources on morality, that they have dissimilar opinions on good and
evil. It makes it difficult, then, to 
establish a universally acceptable set of laws if it is solely based on the dynamic
nature of human emotion.
Kant believes that one's good will is inherently good in itself, and should not be
measured empirically. To use one's 
will as a means to an end produces nothing but unhappiness and extends only to misology,
the hatred of reason. Framing 
one's life to certain expectations and shaping one's actions to the attainment of those
goals can be fatal when those 
expectations are not met. Failure brings people down and to lack reason, one that does
not conform to desires, is to lack a 
foundation to stand on, to enable one to bounce back from defeat. It will serve one
better to have a definite belief in one's 
maxim to be universally acceptable, acting only on those intentions that one believes
everybody else will accept. Therefore, 
the principle of private happiness calls for a person to prove that moral worth within an
existing situation. This theory 
assumes that one's will can not stand independently without it being tested or
challenged. One's prosperity is within the 
human being. All moral conceptions, according to this philosopher, originate not from
empirical evidence, but only reason 
alone. Ends do not justify the means all the time.
One can contrast Kant's beliefs on private happiness to that of Bentham's utilitarian
principle. The latter defends the 
fact that actions are moral to the extent that it maximizes happiness. There is a
functional aspect to morality in this sense 
because one's actions are judged good or bad according to how it makes the individual
happy or unhappy. Kant opposes this 
idea because happiness, in his view, is strictly empirical. What brings a person
satisfaction is subject to one's experiences, it 
involves comparisons to certain events in one's life. And for this, he explains that
there is no definite principle to secure 
happiness, there is no imperative or law that can make anyone happy anytime. Prosperity
is often a sign of happiness, and 
happiness, in Kant's belief, is more of an issue of human imagination, rather than human
reason.
Still according to private happiness, good conduct determines peace in one's life. It can
be assumed in this principle 
that one can only act morally when one wishes to live in prosperity. Kant, on the other
hand, reiterates that it is one's duty to 
act with good will towards one's self and others as well. It is only in this manner that
moral worth can be allocated to one's 
actions. Private happiness tends to be a belief that is very selective on its character.
Individuals that agree with this 
perspective will tend to follow it whenever they see it fit themselves to do so. But
perfectly rational beings, according to 
Kant, will just do the right thing, without any hidden agenda whatsoever.
I believe in some of the areas on private happiness. Like the fact that having good
conduct does increase the chances of 
one having peace of mind. Having a society that still does good things rather than one
mired in chaos and lawlessness, I'd 
take that in a heartbeat. I can sleep well at night knowing that there are still people
who believe in their values and act on 
them, regardless of why they choose to do so. But the idea of a good will serving a
particular purpose does sound 
hypocritical. Kant's notion of doing the right thing because it is one's duty to do so is
part of his philosophy that I believe in. 
But how do you know that there is no hidden agenda? How do you distinguish an act done
out of duty and one done out of 
personal gain? I mean we have to be omniscient, God-like, to be able to separate these
two things. And that is my beef with 
Kant's idea of pure reason and pure good will. It is difficult to filter out the purity
of another's intentions. It does seem to be 
paranoia, or a severe case of distrust on my fellowman, but in order to believe in
something, you've got to test its strength 
across different situations. Only then will you know that you're defending the right
ideology.
Kant, on account of the above reason, now says that one should act only on those
intentions that can be universally 
acceptable, to act only on those intentions that everybody else will accept. But again,
how do you know what is agreeable to 
others and what is detestable? Except for the so-called "psychics", last time I heard, no
human being can read minds...so I 
hope. So, do I agree with the principle of private happiness? I do, when it comes to
exhibiting good conduct, that it does 
determine, among other things, how safe and comfortable one is with his or her life. I
don't, because it does lose moral worth 
when it's a means to an end. However, Kant's supposition is not that clear either to make
me embrace his teachings. I'm left 
in what others often call a conundrum, stuck with no absolute explanation to the nature
of human reason and good will. 
Maybe that's why they teach these things...