Understanding the Two Relevant Versions of the Categorical Imperative
According to Kant’s philosophy, the categorical imperative is an ethical principle determining the rightness of actions following moral ideas. The categorical Imperative has two main interpretations. The concept’s first formulation claims that people should never treat themselves and others as means to their ends. This “admonition” emphasizes respect for the dignity of each person and treats them as free and independent individuals with their desires and needs. In other words, people should respect others and put their interests on an equal footing.
Consequently, the second formulation means that each person must exclusively follow the maxim they wish to make the universal law. Simply put, it means that it is essential for people to act and make decisions based on the regulations they would like the whole world to follow. These principles can be applied to every person and every situation. Maxima is considered correct and morally permissible only if human actions are generalized and can become a universal law. Either way, both thoughts aim to realize substantial and meaningful moral behavior independent of subjective desires or the actual picture of reality.
Application of the Categorical Imperative to the Trolley Dilemma
The Trolley Dilemma is a familiar mental experiment in ethics to many, with no single correct solution. According to the first idea, people are unique beings, not a means to an end; they deserve respect for themselves. Thus, switching a lever to save five people is necessary because respect for each person is shown in this case. Relying on the second idea will be challenging to give an unambiguous answer, as it requires the exclusion of selfish motives. One needs to consider what the world would be like if everyone always chose to switch a lever to save more people, even if it meant one person’s death. However, the specific choice may depend on individual beliefs and context.