A Silly Example to Describe the Difference Between the Categorical Imperative and Consequentialism

I will essentially argue that the categorical imperative is a starting point for analysis that must go further and eventually arrives at utilitarian consequentialism and that all methods of analysis should take into account the consequences of an action especially when the consequences are measured in terms of human lives.

The categorical imperative is derived from the work of Immanuel Kant who essentially argues from a Platonist tradition of “the Forms,” and applies it to morality and ethics. Kant says that for an action to be correct it must be of a “maxim” you would “will” be a universal law.

To make clear the problem with this dictate let’s consider the example of truth. As Kant would probably say only more densely, I would surely prefer a world where the propensity is for honesty and not the alternative. Okay, makes sense. When the matter is to find out the whereabouts of your keys for instance, we can imagine a preference for truth to lying lest we forever be looking for our keys.

However, we can imagine examples where telling the truth would not hold for all cases. Let’s for instance say that Immanuel is living in a time of robust conflict. Immanuel himself is safe being a paragon of morality and upstanding citizen who always says hi and thank you and makes eye contact. He is strictly confined to the pursuit of the good life.

Now Immanuel feels great sympathy for a collection of individuals persecuted for particular beliefs. Immanuel has judged it a morally correct decision to house one of these persecuted individuals in his attic. Let’s call her Anne. Now they have had this arrangement for some time, Anne and Immanuel, and Anne has made herself quite comfortable in the attic reading from Immanuel’s vast collection of work. From time to time she even writes in her diary on ongoing events.

Tonight, though, the rounds are being made. Immanuel, wishing not to comprise his honest as well as his philosophy usually gets a heads up from the guy on the corner when, “not to be home.”

Tonight, Immanuel forgot to check his Facebook, err I mean guy on the corner, and so unbeknownst to him, just such a dicey moral conundrum has presented itself. The authorities affectionately referred to as Big Brother, BB for short, know Immanuel to be upright, well-respected, and honest. Thus, they give him no grief about missing past inspections and upon arriving merely ask,

“Immanuel, good man, well you know there is a rascally bunch, and we are rounding them up to protect the local populace’s good moral sentiments and Christian inclinations: to keep them pure, and unstained in this Sodom of moral depravity. Now, Immanuel, we know you never lie. You have made it well known this should be a universal maxim, though I’m not entirely sure what maxim means. Well we must ask, because you have not been present when we’ve earlier made the rounds, are you housing any of these deplorable characters?”

Now Immanuel is really in a bind, does he adhere to his philosophy and turn over his dear friend, which will spell her certain execution, an end to their fine time, and his moral philosophy?

Immanuel knows he mustn’t consider these and other potential consequences lest he fall into the trap of that despised moral philosophy of consequentialism.

Thinking quickly, he sees that his categorical imperative however does take into consideration the consequences of a decision by extrapolating the rationale of an action to all other situations. His philosophy confounded, he quickly processes this new information analysis and understands that he has not only considered the consequences, he has miscalculated. Presented this moment of decision and not wishing to be without his friend while making no game-theory consideration of repeat games. Thinking only about the merry time of intellectual exercising the two have had, and preferring it to continue. He reasons that life is better than its opposite and quickly becomes a utilitarian though without telling the BB authorities and answers

“No fine officer, I have seen no one of this deplorable constitution that you speak of.”

Now, you might argue that Immanuel has actually not become a utilitarian and is actually acting in relation to the definition of “deplorable person” reasoning that Anne is not deplorable, and thus is not one of the people being spoken of.

However, that’s not the case because Immanuel did know who the authorities were referring to and acted in accordance with the consequences of losing his friend, which he did not want. So, following Immanuel’s example, I will employ a consequentialist framework for analyzing the question of lethal autonomous weapons.

To give a brief overview of consequentialism think about what would happen if Donald Trump won a second term in office. The consequences would be bad. Done.