Why the categorical imperative is useful

Though I tend to favor the utilitarian viewpoint, there is something to be said for Kantian ethics. While utilitarianism offers a logical, calculating approach, the categorical imperative seems in its simplicity to cut right to the heart of the matter without need of a utility balance sheet. It asks us to consider whether a maxim could be acted on while at the same time it should be desirable for universal application. An individual may want to steal, but if stealing were universally accepted, he too would be liable to being stolen from, resulting in the contradiction of simultaneously approving of the concept of stealing while not approving of the real sense of loss resulting from being stolen from. The categorical imperative is an effective tool because it translates into a more logical approach something that happens normally on an emotional level. We empathize with others. This happens because our brains actually simulate our best estimate of the situation another person is in. When we see someone suffering, our brain actually “plays out” the scenario of the same kind of suffering the other person is experiencing. This in turn produces an emotional response, the same emotional response the person who is actually suffering undergoes (assuming our brain is not functioning abnormally, as with some mental disorders, or our ability to put ourselves in others “shoes” is not inhibited by learned cultural prejudices). We therefore deem the spectacle of the suffering person to be “bad” because of our negative emotional response to it. Rules like “do unto others” and the categorical imperative are ways of explicating abstractly what would happen emotionally in specific instances. In this sense, many of these deontological ethical systems do a better job of explaining how our common sense ethical judgement actually works. Does this mean that utilitarianism should be abandoned? I believe not. The problem with our ability to empathize is that it only works for one person (or animal, or even inanimate object, or a conglomerate representation of a large group of people, such as a nation or culture) at a time. It is possible to empathize with either the oppressor or the oppressed. Typically, we can better identify with people who are similar to us in sex, race, age, culture, or other qualities, and therefore we are more apt to empathize with them. True, as long as these prejudices to not slant our view inordinately, we tend to empathize more with the oppressed, probably because their degree of suffering is usually much more intense than the degree of happiness of the oppressor. However, pure empathy with one individual does not take into consideration the entire scope of a situation with moral weight. In cases where parties involved are not so clearly identifiable as cruel oppressor and suffering victim, a fair assessment of a moral dilemma requires more than simply taking one side or the other. In cases where one person is hurt substantially, while the happiness gained is spread among a large number of people, we naturally empathize with the single sufferer. Yet we probably do feel a sense that this individual should not trump a large group of people. This is why utilitarianism is a more objective, and I feel, better ethical system. While we may not be able to quantify and calculate gains and losses in happiness within each individual involved, this is in theory what should be done to determine the moral course of action. In a practical sense, utilitarianism asks us to examine and empathize with every individual involved, record our feelings about each, and with our best judgement come up with a rough estimate of total net gain or loss in happiness. Yes the estimate will often be very rough, but it considers all viewpoints, and forces us to try to empathize with those who may be very different from ourselves.

…………………………

Deontological rules generally work fine, but every now and then the unpredictable universe throws us a curveball. Particular situations may stretch the limits of such rules, and it is at this point that the categorical imperative and our natural emotional response part ways. We may condemn stealing as a rule, but what if a particular instance of stealing would in fact save lives or make more individuals happy? It seems here we would follow the “emotional imperative” instead. At another point, utilitarianism also departs from the emotional imperative, that is, when we empathize with only one or some of the parties involved in a dilemma. I would argue that logically it is better to “leave” the emotional imperative behind because in that instant our ability to empathize is limited. Unless we really can calculate the utility values, we do not so much leave empathy behind as expand it and apply it to everyone. In this sense, utilitarianism is an extended application of this natural judgement ability. Despite the strength and elegance of the categorical imperative, I still prefer the utility balance sheet.


A note on judgement—I also prefer the British spelling of judgment, instead of judgment. The ‘g’ in the middle without the ‘e’ as a partner makes me sad. So yeah, I like spelling it “wrong” despite the spell-checker’s attempts to change it.