Hey all, just thought I'd post this up. It's a criticism to Kant's views on the universality of moral intuition. I call it "GROUNDING FOR THE ILLEGITIMACY OF KANT'S HYPOTHETICALLY CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE"

In this essay, I will examine the role of Kant's Categorical Imperative in respect to his concept of the nature of the human mind and its universal laws of morality. First I will explain the roles of good will, duty, intension, and how they play into moral decision making. I will then show how Kant's reliance on strict mental universality is overly broad and limits the applicability of his logic to simplified circumstances, and not to more complex moral scenarios. An over reliance of a grand unifying theory of the collective rational mind conveniently neglects more complicated situations in which an individual's maxims may conflict due to the specific circumstances of everyday life.
-Morality, according to Kant's "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals", is not something we learn through life. Rather, the morality of the rational mind is defined and governed by certain laws of reason, which are inherent and clear to us all "A Priori", or prior to experience. The principles that form the groundwork or our inherent moral logic stem from the idea of "good will", which is an entity that is good in itself, rather than for the good it may cause. One with good will, to Kant, fulfills one's duty out of reason, as opposed to acting out of conformity to one's duty. It is this "Reason" that allows us to make the right choices. Conversely, it is our learned experiences ("A Posteriori") that cause us to act emotionally or out of self-interest, which, in turn, causes us to violate our highest motive as rational beings: to fulfill our duty not because it is in our self interest, but because it is the right way to act. This is the foundation for Kant's Categorical Imperative, which, because it is based upon inherent moral principles, should be clear to all who are rational. Kant says one should "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law".

-There is a clear inconsistency in this concise, yet grandiose rule, which tells us to act in accordance with universal maxims. Maxims such as "I should not lie" and "I should protect my friends and family" are clearly universal laws. After all, if "I should not lie" were not universal, there would be no reason to trust. Without "I be loyal to my friends and family", any filial or familial bond is meaningless in society. These ideas are acceptable when thought of from an abstract, metaphysical standpoint. However, metaphysical concepts that are meant to be followed and adhered to in the physical world should account for the complexities we face in the physical world. General maxims, when viewed as singular, universal concepts to be acknowledged and followed, are simply too narrow to be pertinent in the world we live in.

-Take, for example, a situation in which one is housing his son who is presumed guilty for a crime that he did not commit. When the police knock at this man's door and asks if his son is present, this man is faced with the task of choosing between conflicting universal maxims. Among these maxims, two stand out as clearly conflicting: "I should not lie" and " I should be loyal to my friends and family". I assume for the sake of my argument, that most rational people, when presented with this scenario, think that lying to protect one's son from an unjust prison term is appropriate and yet Kant would not. I speculate that Kant would find that man responsible for divulging the truth, no matter how unjust the prison term may be, and would also constitute lying in order to protect as being a "means to an end", and therefore an adherence to an erroneous and irrational hypothetical imperative. I disagree with Kant's logic in this regard. For, while the act of protecting can often times involve causality (and can thus often be hypothetical in nature, especially when contemplated from a specific and more literal perspective), there are undeniable universal justifications for the act of protecting ones son from an unjust sentencing. It is not rational to live by a universal maxim that allows unjust consequences for the sake of following another universal maxim. Kant gets carried away with the idea of universiality and neglects to explain the rationale behind these universal laws. Instead he discounts them as innate.

To follow up this point, if an ethical system based upon categorical imperatives is considered to be autonomous (or that we follow our own laws), then how is it that the rationale behind submitting one's son for the sake of unfounded and unjust protocol can be considered self-determinant? Can universal rationale then be considered both autonomous and heteronomous if one must follow the laws of another to act in accordance with universal laws? Kant fails to sufficiently differentiate what is a very blurry line separating these two supposedly different concepts. His idea of a true, collective universal rationale may actually not be has universal as he would lead us to believe.