Note Formulation 1 of the Categorical Imperative is this;
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time WILL that it should become a universal law without contradiction.
Willed as a Universal Law meant it is applicable to all normal rational person.
In principle [note principle] if all [universally] normal rational person applies this [permitted to kill others], then it will lead to the eventual extinction of the human species after the last person is dead.
On this basis, Formulation 1 is rational and acceptable. Note there are 4 other formulations to iron out any kinks in Formulation 1.
Your examples are not applicable as you are conflating ‘Ought’ with “IS.” What is needed is a reconciliation of ‘ought’ with “is” not a conflation of them.
As I mentioned, in principle, if killing is permissible to all people, then, the final result is the extinction of the human specie.
In contrast, if killing is not permissible, then there is no threat to the human specie as a far as ‘killing’ is concerned.
If you test the CI [Formula 1] with all sort of human variables, you will find CI-1 will stand the test.
The categorical imperative is sound within the perspective of pure reason as an ideal. As I mentioned, this ideal is to be merely used as a guide and not to be enforceable.
You need to note [I had mentioned many times] the Kantian Moral/Ethical system comprised the two aspects, i.e. the Pure and Applied.
For example, there is a perfect triangle within Pure Geometry in theory and measurements but there will not be any perfect triangle in empirical reality.
Similarly, we can postulate and assume ideal and perfect absolute moral principles, i.e. the Categorical Imperative, but we do not expect the CI to exist in empirical reality.
To reconcile and align actual practice with the CI we need to introduce Maxims that are aligned as near as possible to the CI.
We may start the maxim with ‘No killing is permissible.’
But we know this is not realistic in practice.
So we add a provision to the Maxim with a Law,
‘Killing is permissible only with the following exceptions’
It is then up to the judiciary to deal with such exceptions.
The positive direction is the setting of the CI establish a fixed goal post to modulate and improve on actual ethical conditions.
When the Maxim is 'No killing is permissible, ’ i.e. Zero,
then there is a benchmark for the executive to manage the variance between zero and the actual number of killings.
Say, the number of actual killings is 100,000 in 2015.
We will analyze the root cause of these killing and find preventive measure to reduce the number to as close as possible to the [quite] impossible ought of zero.
Yes, genocides and the other negatives are still in existent and the human population is increasing.
However if you put the reduction of these negative variables in a graph you will find a positive trend.
Note the ratio to total is more critical than the number in this case.
The ratio of the number of human sacrifice per total population 5,000 years ago would have significantly reduce since then to now.
The number of countries with capital punishment over total countries in the world would have reduced significantly over the last 500 to 100 years.
The ratio of the number of slaves over total population would have reduced significantly over the last 5000 years.
You can do the same estimation for the various evil variables and you will note the increasing positive trend.
This I claim is based on the potential inherent moral impulse within the human DNA.
Note my explanation above.
I started with ‘what ought/must be done’ in principle as abstracted from empirical evidences, e.g. real life situations, moral impulse [mirror neurons, oxytocin,] in the human DNA, etc. This is the pure moral aspects of the Kantian system.
The Kantian system then bridges and reconcile the ‘ought’ with the 'is" via its ethical aspects.
There is no issue here.
Applying the principle of the CI, genocide will lead to eventual human extinction. The CI will stand as a moral principle regardless. Thus the initial maxim is,
No genocide is permissible.
Theoretical: IF [big IF] genocide really necessary, the judiciary will then implement laws to cater for exception where genocide is necessary. In reality I don’t think such a provision for genocide will ever be considered. Within the taxonomy of evil, genocide will be categorized as one of those with the highest degree of evil and obviously no compromise will be allowed.
Re why the preservation of the specie is good, I have explained in my earlier post. It is like asking why breathing is good, i.e. a critical universal necessity.
The test of whether something is good can be done by putting it through Formula 1 of the CI. If it lead to the extinction of the specie, then, it is not good. In other cases, the test is that of general reciprocity.
Btw, the formulation of the CI assume humans are normal rational people and thus exclude people who are mentally sick.
Note the Law of Non-Contradiction imply same time and same sense.
There is no contradiction in my case as it involves two different senses, i.e.
- the transcendental pure reason and
- the empirical
I explained we can strive for perfect ideals [via pure reason] as merely a guide but such ideals are not achievable in empirical reality.
The second problem — You say: “What is good need to be aligned with the Categorical Imperative”, and I ask, why does what is good need to be aligned with the categorical imperative? Even if a good is aligned with the imperative, why does that make it good?
I have explained this in my earlier post.
viewtopic.php?p=2530250#p2530250
When an action/thought is in alignment with the categorical imperative, it is considered good.
If an action/thought is in misalignment with the categorical imperative [it is considered not so good or bad], it impinges on the survival of the individual, the preservation of the human specie and the progress and well-being of humanity. Note there are degrees [1 -99.99%] of ‘good’ and ‘evil.’
Without a reason why “all rational individuals should strive to act in accordance with the above CI”, what you are stating is mere dogmatism, one would be obligated to act in accordance with the imperative merely because someone (in this case Kant) says so.
Note I gave the reasons above, i.e.
the survival of the individual, the preservation of the human specie and the progress and well-being of humanity.
I would not prefer the term obligated.
In general, when one is a member of a NBA team, being professional one will strive to perform optimally in alignment with the rest of the team member and the team’s mission [team CI and goals], not because the coach said so.
In the case of Kant, it is not because Kant said so. Kant merely highlighted the natural moral impulse within the individual and humanity and presented it very systematically. It is up to the rational and complete individual to understand the principles involved and strive to rewire his/her brain [this is the critical phase we need to consider now into the future] to align with the CI optimally.
This eventually will drive the individual and collective to uplift the average personal moral quotient based on effective approaches.
And every time you speak of compliance with the imperative you immediately contradict it by saying “it is recognized in reality the individual human can never conform to the above” and earlier “But the fact is we must face reality.” etc. which breaks your own rule for the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”
I hope by now you have understood there is no contradiction as they are in different senses.
This does not follow. You say that the CI will not change, yet immediately the categorical nature of the imperative changes because in reality we must adopt contradicting “Maxims, Laws and Rules”, thus the assertion that the imperatives are categorical (universal) is proven of itself false and logically untenable.
Like the lighthouse that will not change, the CI as a principle will not change but merely will be used as guide. I have explained there is no contradiction.
I am inclining at present to see this point of view as dogmatic, not only must we accept the imperative for no other reason than that it is good because it is the categorical imperative, but then we must accept it while simultaneously contradicting it to follow “Maxims, Laws and Rules” which we haven’t even yet examined as to their own validity, and surely these “Maxims, Laws and Rules” cannot themselves be categorical if you have already stated that they would contradict other categorical imperatives.
The impulse of the CI is the same as sex is an inherent universal impulse for humans. There are exceptions but they are irrelevant to the universal expectation of humans to produce the next generation. Other than exceptions, the sexual impulse will manifest in humans, there is no question of whether one must accept or reject it.
Thus just like the sex impulse, there is no question of accepting the CI because it is inherent within humans.
As for contradiction, I hope you understood my explanations above why there is no contradiction.
The CI of Morality is similar to the perfect triangle of Pure Geometry. Meanwhile the Maxims, judiciary laws and rules are the real triangles in practice that we attempt to make perfect but can never achieve perfection, nevertheless we benefit from the continuous improvement towards the ideal in the course of striving to be perfect.
Thus striving for the never achievable perfect as a fixed guide is more effective than chasing after movable goal post like those the non-Kantian moral/ethical systems.