The Kantian categorical imperative

Sample Solution

    The Kantian Categorical Imperative states that an action is morally right if it can be applied to everyone universally. This ethical framework suggests that when analyzing the morality of an issue, such as the death penalty and abortion, one should consider what would happen if everyone acted in this way.

When looking at the debate surrounding the death penalty from a Kantian perspective, one should ask whether or not it is moral for everyone to have their lives taken away by another person without consent. The answer to this question is no; taking someone’s life without consent cannot be considered right if it were applicable to all people. Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, it would be unethical to impose the death penalty on any individual as it goes against his categorical imperative. In contrast, when considering abortion from a Kantian point of view it may be argued that aborting a fetus does not necessarily violate his categorical imperative since fetuses are unable to give their own consent for termination. In other words, regardless of whether or not one believes in abortion rights; so long as those rights apply universally and consistently across all cases then they do not go against Kant’s categorical imperative – making them morally permissible under his terms. Hence, according Kantian ethics abortion could potentially be seen as being ethical depending upon how universalized access is framed within a particular context. Ultimately, while one can make arguments on either side regarding both these issues using a Kantian framework; ultimately he believed that we should act based on principles which could serve as laws applicable universally – thus meaning taking away someone’s life without consent (i.e., through capital punishment) and denying access/rights which are available universally (i.e., with regards abortions) would go against his categorical imperative and therefore ought to be deemed immoral behaviors overall