What is “moral”?

Bear with me a for a sec… 🙂

I wrote this a long while back (6 years ago, actually) in response to a question about what Kant’s Categorical Imperative really meant, and the nature of morality according to Kant.  I was just reading back over some of my old stuff, and found it again.  Thought I’d share it with all of you, since this is very different from the usual stuff I write here.  I don’t usually go this high-brow. I’d like to think of myself as a populist, for the most part. =) 

* * * * *

What is Kant’s Categorical Imperative and his concept of morality?

Kant basically posited (philo-speak for "said") that the best way to test an act for its morality would be to ask yourself if anyone else faced with the same question would consider the act moral and hence act that way. For instance, you can try to justify lying to a murderer to save your brother (like, for instance, if he asks you "Do you know where I can find your brother?"), but Kant believed that the act of lying itself couldn’t be justified. Anyone else in the world, if they were to be asked "Is a lie good?" would be expected to say no. This is the backbone of this philosophy.

But why believe this when the consequences (ex. death of your brother… though for some that may not be TOO bad… 🙂 ) seem to be so grave? Well, think about it this way…

If someone were to change universal laws or truths of morality based on his/her own preference or particular situation, would the rule still be absolute? If one can lie in certain situations, then you really can’t say that lying is bad, can you? You can say a lie, when it produces some good that I can personally verify to be good enough, is okay.

Kant obviously believed that this kind of moral waffling would lead to moral chaos, since everyone’s sense of morality could then be used to justify individual acts of "straying" from moral laws. Sure, maybe one good person can justify lying to save someone’s life, but wouldn’t this kind of moral license be dangerous to give, especially if you can’t really tell what individual people consider good or bad? What is killing, for instance, if it improves the master race? (see: Hitler) The Nazis justified torture and killing for a "higher purpose" of German societal advancement. That may have been enough good for them to shirk all laws against murder, but in hindsight six million Jewish souls would disagree.

This is why Kant didn’t want any exceptions. If a rule is a rule, then it is your duty to follow it. Otherwise, it isn’t a rule, but a suggestion. Kant put much store in duty, and the Categorical Imperative is the reason why. Allowing individuals to shape their own morality by bending laws that society considers important could only lead to that society’s moral decay.