CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE– in Kant’s ethics, a synonym for the moral imperative, the designation of a moral norm as formally independent in its foundations from any actual conditions of human volition 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 actual or possible desire of the subject. Unlike the hypothetical imperative, the categorical imperative expresses the pure rule-making of moral reason. The criterion for the legitimacy of a desire therefore consists in the possibility for this desire to become a necessary principle of the will in general and 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 of an emphasis on the form of volition; The “formula” of this acceptable form of volition is precisely the categorical imperative, but not the moral law. The categorical imperative prohibits making the value of volition dependent on its content, but thereby does not at all make volition dependent on its own content. own form: the will, subject to the categorical imperative, is subject to reason, but not to the subject; the will, the form of value determination of which is described by the categorical imperative, is moral for any specific content. The will, the determination of the value of which is determined by its content, whatever its content, is in any case non-moral: the value that drives it is not a moral value. Such is the pathos of Kantian formalism.

Thus, the place of a subjective goal (for all its anthropological significance) in ethics is taken by an objective goal, valuable not according to the personal whim of the one who sets it, but completely independent of the content of any arbitrariness - a goal that is metaphysically original and therefore valuable in itself. This, at least, is the goal of preserving the very subject of all goals - man in his universal, or generic existence, as humanity in man. This rational nature of humanity and of every intelligent living thing in general is a goal in itself. Therefore, the formal quality of any moral will must be such that in this will the value of rational humanity is always and necessarily assumed as the goal of this will itself and the condition for the acceptance of all other goals, which, in contrast to this goal, must 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 judgment, and therefore the moral reality of the will is mediated by the moral faculty of judgment. The formal principle of this ability, which determines the attitude of its subject to moral form 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 (to have no laws of personal will other than 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: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will can at the same time have the force of a principle.” universal legislation» ( Kant. Op. in 6 volumes, volume 4, part 1. M., 1965, p. 347). “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it only as a means” (ibid., p. 270); each must relate to himself and to others in accordance with “the idea of ​​humanity as an end in itself” (ibid.). For a will perfected in virtue, the categorical imperative, as Kant himself admitted, has no force: from a norm of will it turns into a description of the form of volition that is natural for it. See lit. to Art. "Critique of Practical Reason" .

I. Kant believed that man, as a moral being, must 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 of subordinating one’s actions to the principle of reason. This imperative is categorical and not hypothetical because it does not require proof and speaks of a pure goal that a person strives for 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 ​​an obligation is contained in the term “imperative”. In everyday speech we say “categorical”, already implying an obligation. The categorical imperative, expressing 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 compulsion, then such an imperative is either a permissive or prohibiting law, after the commission or non-fulfillment 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 benefit, 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 do not allow 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 categorical ones, I. Kant identifies non-categorical imperatives. All non-categorical imperatives are hypothetical, all of them are conditional, since they require skills (prescribe skills). The 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” ones, since, based on the stated 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 positive attitude to himself, he must act in accordance with the norms of public morality.

I. Kant's imperatives, both categorical and hypothetical, orient people towards free activity and selfless communication of people in society. In his opinion, 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 independently choose an action. In the absence of free will, actions can be normative in content, 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, saying, aphorism) - subjective principle of volition (free will). This is a rule of behavior or a basic principle that guides a person in his actions. It contains a practical rule, which reason determines in accordance with the conditions of the subject (usually his ignorance or his inclinations), and, therefore, is the principle according to which the subject acts. Accordingly, the maxim is narrower in nature than the imperative, and more subjective.

A maxim can be formed on the basis of an imperative. In this case, the person, having assimilated the content contained in it, comprehends it, checks it, proves to himself its consistency and the need to comply with the instructions contained in the imperative, translates it into his own individual language, i.e. reformulates using familiar words and phrases. If a 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.

A maxim can be present in the structure of individual morality regardless of the individual’s knowledge of imperatives. This, however, does not mean that maxims, from the point of view of content and meaning, deny imperatives. For example, a significant number of people one way or another agree with the so-called “golden rule of morality”: “Do as you would like people to do to 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, so it will respond”; “Don’t dig a hole for someone else, you will fall into it yourself,” etc. Few people know the formulations of I. Kant’s imperatives, but the proverbs are familiar and understandable to many. And it is natural that most people would rather be guided by maxims expressed in understandable and accessible words than by using 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, understanding this, proposes to be guided only by such maxims that can guide every person in relation to everyone and everyone, while expecting a similar attitude towards himself.

“Act in such a way that the maxim of your will can at the same time have the force of a principle of universal legislation.” This is the categorical imperative of I. Kant. Who formulated such a thought before Kant? What is it called and what is its content?

Immanuel KANT (1724-1804) founder of German classical philosophy. Kant outlined his political and legal views in the treatises: “Ideas general history from a cosmopolitan point of view", "To eternal peace", "Metaphysical principles of the doctrine of law."

The cornerstone principle of Kant's socio-political views is that every person has perfect dignity, absolute value. Man is a subject moral consciousness, fundamentally different from the surrounding nature, - in his behavior he must be guided by the dictates of the moral law. This law is a priori, is not influenced by any external circumstances and is therefore unconditional. Kant calls it the "categorical imperative." It says: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your behavior can at the same time be the principle of universal legislation.” Or in other words: act in such a way that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of anyone else, as an end and never only as a means.

A set of conditions that limit the arbitrariness of one in relation to others through objective common law freedom, Kant calls right. Every right must act as a compulsory right. Only the state, the original and primary bearer of coercion, is capable of imparting to law the property it so needs. According to Kant, it turns out that statehood is brought to life and its existence is ultimately justified by the requirements of the categorical imperative.

Kant's promotion and defense of the thesis that the good and purpose of the state lies in perfect law, in the maximum compliance of the structure and regime of the state with the principles of law, gave reason to consider Kant one of the founders of the concept of the rule of law.

Borrowed from Sh.L. Montesquieu did not interpret the idea of ​​separation of powers in the state as the idea of ​​a balance of powers. In his opinion, every state has three powers: legislative (belonging only to the sovereign “collective will of the people”), executive (concentrated with the legal ruler and subordinate to the legislative supreme power), and judicial (appointed by the executive). The subordination and consent of these three powers can prevent despotism and guarantee the prosperity of the state. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: Textbook. - M.: Gardarika, 1998-355p.

We tried to understand the fundamentals of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy in a conversation with Doctor of Philology, Professor Vladimir Khamitovich Gilmanov.

- Where does the path to Kant begin?

– It begins with asking yourself the main questions of the whole philosophical system Kanta: 1. What can I know? 2. What should I do? 3. What can I hope for? And these questions are summed up, as Kant emphasizes, to the most general and fundamental - what is a person? And Kant’s answer to these questions, even for Kant scholars, is a serious hermeneutical task. It is not enough to say that Kant in its essence can be reduced to a moral law based on the formula: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will at every moment can become the principle of universal legislation.” The maxim of the will in every person is conscience, which requires a person, according to Kant, to follow this formula in order not only to become a person, but also to save the world. But besides this, Kant must be studied, taking into account all the previous painful experience of understanding man and the world in a philosophical and theological key. I mean those “force fields” without which Kant cannot be imagined. This, for example, is a problem of consciousness, primarily in the aspect of perception and synthesis of what is perceived by a person in the experience of the world, and is perceived in a human-morphic way. That is, a person is included in the very experience of the world, who necessarily shapes the entry of the world into himself in his sensuality and reason. This is Kant’s “Copernican turn,” since before Kant, the majority naively believed that our perception and understanding of the world itself reflects the world as it is. According to Kant, the world is “doomed” to that form of its organization in man, which is peculiar to man, that is, it is human consciousness, in its “mysterious” specificity, that forms the world for us, but at the same time gives the world the opportunity to be determined for itself, but only through our knowledge !

Moreover, the path to Kant cannot be started without taking into account the philosophical and theological anguish of previous generations on the question of God. Kant himself was born in a Protestant environment, he was brought up in the spirit of pietism. He grew up in the very complex cultural and ideological atmosphere of 18th century Königsberg, in a city with a developed cultural infrastructure, with one of the leading European universities. This environment was imbued with the main trends in the development of European self-awareness during that period, marked by the complex dramaturgy of the relationship between faith and thinking. During this period, “God is still alive” for human culture. Nietzsche hastened to announce the “death of God” about half a century after Kant. But for Kant, the world without God will fall apart, despite the fact that, due to His absolute nature, God is beyond the limits of human capacity for feeling and understanding. I will emphasize this difficulty of Kant for posterity, who often consider Kant hostile to the idea of ​​God. Kant simply honestly admitted to his contemporaries that the philosophical boundary to God is moral faith: another is impossible for philosophy... But Kant cannot be understood without his philosophical postulate about the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.

– What are the main problems of Kant’s philosophy?

Immanuel Kant poses two main questions. First: can a person, on the basis of his own self-awareness, understand the world in such a way that, on the basis of this understanding, he finds the possibility of so-called intersubjective harmonious communication with other people, i.e. the possibility of clear interpersonal and interethnic communication, i.e. communication where there is mutual understanding. Kant recognized the dramatic lack of common grounds for truly human and just interaction. Today we also understand each other very poorly, starting from interpersonal communication in society and ending global problems communications between world regions. For Kant, this was the main question: is it possible, at the level of our self-consciousness, to organize understanding in such a way that we have a common basis for mutual understanding. For Kant, this is what is called general a priori synthetic judgments. And this Kantian question is more important today than ever.

The second question: is freedom possible? Today we do not understand what Kant means by freedom. Kant was most afraid of “dissolutions” in different solutions, in which the true nature of my true individuality is lost. He was afraid that man would always be instrumentalized by some ideological, pseudo-religious, aesthetic and other solutions. Kant considered this “dissolution” to be a disease of the world in which he lived. He considered enlightenment to be the main cure against this disease, which, according to Kant, returns to each individual the secret of his endless personal responsibility for the world. This responsibility, my true Self, can only be recognized if I achieve the deepest maximum of my true human essence on the path of liberation from traditional forms of various guardianship. Endless “guardians” deprive me of freedom, which, however, according to Kant, makes me a necessary legislator of the world in its necessary moral essence. That is, freedom is my making of the world according to the formula of the moral law, which is very difficult, since the world is always looking for forms, often pleasant, to justify its lack of freedom. Today, this lack of freedom is based, unfortunately, on the dominant belief that man is, first of all, a natural biological being. According to Kant, man is not rooted in physics, but in what is above physics - in the moral principle.

Kant's motto: “Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own reason without the guidance of another.” In this light of Kant, it is precisely the idolized principle of physical determinism that appears as the “other” today. But Kant, understanding the importance of man’s physical conditioning as a “citizen of nature,” believed that, while also being a “citizen of culture,” a person can gain freedom, the idea of ​​which is inherent in his mind. That is, man is not homo naturalis and not homo oeconomicus, as many believe, but homo moralis.

How does Kant solve the problem of freedom?

– Kant tries to remind every contemporary and every descendant that without freedom we are doomed to lose our true human individuality. Without freedom, we will never discover the depth of our original personality that connects each person with all of humanity. But it is precisely in this freedom that everyone comes into contact with the ultimate boundary of personal individuality: it is paradoxical and means not only social, but also cosmological responsibility! “Act as if the will of your action were the law of nature.” Kant's maxim is that I am responsible for the world, and not anyone else, including society.

You will say - Hitler or another political monster decided that he, in his individuality, is responsible for the world, then what about everyone else? According to Kant, everything is more complicated. I recognize my individuality to a certain extent. When I learn something, I learn that within me there is always a limit to my knowledge. Different individuals have different limits, but there is always a final limit to the universal limit. For example, nature. My knowledge of nature, according to Kant, will never be absolutely consistent with what nature is in itself. Because nature is known through the way it appears to me. This is a “thing in itself,” because nature appears in my subjective ability to perceive and think it through within me, in the mill of my rational categories and ability to feel. But it appears to everyone differently, even to superphysicists who create different theories space and brain, for example, Hawking and Penrose. Kant says that everyone perceives the world in their own way and everyone has the individual dynamics of their personal arbitrariness, but there are some common grounds, which he reduces to the need to regulate these arbitrariness according to a law common to all. Let me emphasize again: not according to external, for example, legal or religious-dogmatic law, but according to my internal, recognizable in my individual honesty in me. This - amazing fact moral law in me, which should be the final and common regulative principle for all. Betrayal of this law, according to Kant, is essential suicide, since I will still be as biomass, but no longer as a person in my own right. true essence. There will be a “dehumanization of man,” a breakthrough of the beast. In place of the freedom of the moral law with its goal-setting and organizing energies, the “Lord of the Flies” will appear, as in the novel by W. Golding...

Kant’s philosophy of freedom is very inconvenient for a person, since a person always prefers “laziness and cowardice” to immaturity and dependence on what he elevates to the status of a necessary primary – instincts, money, comfort, career, etc. Freedom is a difficult matter, and Kant, knowing this, insists and edifies: freedom is not an inclination or a pleasant self-affirmation, but a painful duty in any situation to act according to one’s conscience. His philosophy is a serious warning for posterity, since Kant reduces the question of the possibility of freedom to the question of survival. Unfreedom from false ideas, from idols and passions, from prejudices, etc. is destructive for humanity and will drive it to the graveyard human race" Freedom is the great duty of a person to realize his true, but difficult to comprehend, essence. The maximum of our knowledge says that everything in the world is determined, but it is different for everyone. In different ideologies and religions, in different sciences and arts, these cause-and-effect relationships are different. So we can't understand each other? Does this mean that I am totally unfree, and I can only dissolve in this determination by nature, ideology or religion?

And Kant poses the question: is there something in each individual that is absolutely unconditioned for everyone? This is a moral law. Kant was looking for what is inside every individual, regardless of his nationality, religion, class, or political beliefs. Do we have the ability to communicate with each other? Is it possible to escape from determinism? Kant said there is. This possibility is based on the fact of unconditionality, i.e. freedom of conscience in me. It's my inner root cause that can set me free acting force in a completely unfree world. Kant believed that man is the only creature capable of freely setting goals. Kant does not explain the nature of conscience; he says that it simply exists in me. According to Kant, this is the only difficult path of Enlightenment...

Kant is one of the few philosophers in the history of the world who is not so easy to deal with from the standpoint of any other system of thought, including natural scientific methodology. Because of the amazing depth of honest “monitoring” of human consciousness, Kant has an amazing immunity against all attempts to overcome it. He is irresistible. Moreover, with all the complexity of his transcendental apparatus, he seems naively simple to the majority, since he puts his moral law at the forefront of all corners. Already in childhood, many begin to get tired of the edifications about conscience that parents, schools, etc. “load” on them. But Kantian simplicity is, in fact, incredibly complex in its practical implementation. And this is the ominous paradox of humanity - people come into the world with an intuition of good, but turn reality into the “banality of evil.”

Today, when the world is still in a fever, many are turning to Kant in an attempt to rediscover and actualize him, since people still find it difficult to get rid of the “two things” that Kant writes about with almost pathos, although he was against pathos: this is the “starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

Imagine what kind of mission the IKBFU, bearing the name of Kant, could undertake to “work on the mistakes” in history and modernity, committed and being committed due to the betrayal of the moral law!

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 choices are or could be based. The ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the most remarkable such attempts.

Prerequisites 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, right up to the 19th century. It lies in the fact that there is such knowledge that is eternal, unchanging and universal.

The second premise is primarily characteristic of medieval religious philosophy and may seem very strange to modern man. It consists in the fact that freedom is independence from any circumstances. Kant divides the world of nature 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 learning the truth. Accordingly, everything that reason can prescribe to us is something eternal, unchanging and universal, that is, something that everyone should do at all times.

Three formulations of the categorical imperative

Based on this, Kant develops an ethical system based on the categorical imperative - the requirement of reason to strictly follow the rules it has developed. This imperative has three formulations that are mutually exclusive and complementary:

1. Act in such a way 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 encourages us, when performing this or that action, to imagine what would happen if everyone did this all the time. Moreover, the evaluation of the action in in this case it will not be so much ethical or emotional: “I like it” or “not such a situation,” but strictly logical. If, in a case where 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 being told is a lie. But in this case, communication will be practically impossible.

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

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

This formulation follows much less obviously 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 fact that the source of any purpose and value is reason. And it is reason that is the purpose of the legislation that he 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 were to make it a rule to use others as means to achieve ends, and not as ends in themselves, we would be faced with a paradox in which no one and nothing can serve as the source of any end for which we could use certain means.

This imperative may seem quite trivial, since it is very similar to " Golden Rule morality": do as you want to be treated. However, it is interesting because, 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 own desires and act 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.

From the “golden rule” we can deduce that if you are, for example, a masochist, then you should cause pain to other people. Then, due to the crude universality of the prescriptions, it is more like the first formulation of the categorical imperative. The second calls us to think about the good of another person. Rather, she advises replacing yourself with another, while the “golden rule” suggests replacing another with yourself.

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

Here the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative are combined in a non-obvious way. The first requires the establishment of universal objective laws. The second requires making the subject the goal of these laws. The third actually repeats the premises and previous formulations.

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

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