Kant and the Categorical Imperative: Perfect Vs Imperfect Duties

The categorical imperative is part of Immanuel Kant's theory of morality, and is basically the idea that a person should only do an action if the maxim is such that can be willed into universal law (Kant 286). That is, Kant is simply saying that an action is moral if, in a situation where every person in the world who could follow the maxim and perform the action was to go ahead and follow that maxim and perform the action, the continual occurrence of this action would not be hindered in any way by any other circumstances.

The categorical imperative can be explained by relating it to the act of lying. In deciding whether or not to tell a lie, one must suppose that the act of lying was not only universally acceptable, but universally executed as well. In such a world, people would follow the maxim: "It is permissible to lie". That situation would lead to widespread mistrust. Eventually, the act of lying would become unnecessary, because people would no longer believe each other; thus eliminating the very reason and need for telling lies.

As explained in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Kant felt that lying was very "self-defeating" due to the fact that the point of lying is to be believed, and so if things got to the point where people no longer trusted others at all, then the act of lying is no longer necessary. This leads to the conclusion that an absolute rule such as "It is alright to lie" absolutely cannot be willed into universal law and therefore not permissible. Many would argue with Kant and say that there are circumstances where lying is necessary, asserting that Kant's view that there are absolute rules in determining morality, is wrong (Rachels 124). Kant defends his theory by saying that lying is not permissible because the act simply cannot be willed into universal law and also because it is impossible for one to see what good can eventually come of an action, and so it is a better choice to just tell the truth at all times (Rachels 125).

The categorical imperative leads to what Kant calls perfect and imperfect duties. These duties are actions that people should do that, according to Kant, can be willed into universal law, and are therefore moral. Perfect duties consist of things that people must constantly be doing throughout their daily lives. Imperfect duties are those duties that, while not required of people at all times, are deserving of admiration.

One example of a perfect duty is one's duty to not commit suicide. Hypothetically, a maxim for committing suicide would be: "If I feel very depressed, I should kill myself." Using the categorical imperative, we can deduce that killing oneself because he is very depressed is really not permissible. If it was universally followed that one should kill himself if he was very depressed, then eventually the entire world population would die out. This is because the majority of people will get depressed for one reason or another during the course of their lives, and if nothing else causes one to become depressed, the fact that many of one's friends, family and acquaintances have committed suicide in following this maxim is sure to get a person depressed enough to follow suit. Therefore if this maxim were willed into universal law, then humans would cease to exist, and with no people around, there is nobody to follow the maxim, and therefore the action is logically immoral. Kant further explains how suicide is not permissible by explaining the idea of self-love, which is not only a perfect duty that one must always do for himself, but a supreme duty as well (Kant 286). According to Kant, people ought to try and improve their lives, and committing suicide is against this idea of self-love.

Willingly contributing to a charity is an example of an imperfect duty. While giving to charity is obviously a moral action, it is not a duty that one must always be performing. Some may argue that one is not always presented with an opportunity to contribute to charity, but again, with an imperfect duty, it is not required of one to always do it, it is, however, looked upon with much admiration when one does.

Kant's differentiation of perfect versus imperfect duties makes total sense to me. It is logical to believe that there are some moral rules that one must always abide by, such as not telling lies all the time, or that it is good to give to charity, though that is not required at all times. Where I believe that Kant's theory falls through is his belief in absolute moral rules. With regard to telling lies, it is perfectly understandable to have such a guideline as "it is morally wrong to tell a lie." Kant, however, disagrees with the notion of having exceptions to this rule, i.e., in situations which warrant what we call a "white" lie.

In conclusion, Kant's theory is effective in creating a logical map in deciding whether or not an action can be called moral, and his perfect versus imperfect duties theory certainly is compatible with most general moral beliefs. I find that Kant's theory fails because of his unwillingness to budge from his viewpoint that there are exceptions to certain moral rules and guidelines that his theory and the categorical imperative do not allow for.