Discussion Starter - Kant

Kant seems to define the categorical imperative as being arrived at through a combination of reason and knowledge of the real world. It comes from considering the hypothetical situation of what would happen if your behavior in a specific instance were imitated by everyone in all similar circumstances: “act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law” (34). One example Kant gives is that a person must not borrow money that they will not be able to pay back because, should everyone borrow money on false pretenses, “no one would believe he was being promised anything” and the system of lending and borrowing would fall apart (35). To arrive at such a conclusion, a person must use reason to think about what would happen in a hypothetical situation, but that reason is being applied along with practical knowledge of how the world works, such as the realization that loans rely on trust between the lender and borrower. Thus this method arrives at conclusions that give concrete guidelines on how to act, guidelines that make sense in the real world. So it makes sense that Kant refers to the categorical imperative as ‘synthetic a priori.’

Kant seems to imply that anyone can use this method to arrive at a true set of morals, which seems to me to imply that everyone should arrive at the same conclusions through Kant’s process. However, it does not seem that this would always be the case. For instance, Kant uses the example of a wealthy person who “while he sees that others have to struggle, thinks: what’s it to me?” (36). However, a will based on the principle of refusing help to others “would conflict with itself, as many cases can yet come to pass in which one needs the love and compassion of others” (36). Therefore, if they give the matter consideration, the wealthy person must conclude that they have to help others. This is reasonable if the issue in question is giving help to others in the broad sense, but the theory becomes more problematic when applied to certain more specific questions. For example, what if the hypothetical wealthy person is wondering whether they are obligated to donate to charity? It is possible that they will come to the conclusion that if no wealthy people donated to the poor, no great harm would come to society. Though this would hurt the poor, logic alone tells the wealthy person that they would benefit. Coming to a different conclusion requires some sort of further moral conscience that Kant doesn’t define. On the other hand, a person who is poor would come to the conclusion that those who are able should give to those in need, as this being a rule would benefit them. It makes sense for them to give what little they can, if they can, if it means they in turn received a larger amount from the wealthy. Thus we see a conflict between the morals of the poor and the wealthy under Kant’s system. Would Kant be okay with this? Or does some additional condition have to be added to his formula?