Question

It is sometimes objected (by Utilitarians) that Kant's theory makes unintuitive, absolute prohibitions against certain actions, like torture. It is unituitive to say that, in the face of extreme bad consequences, we must never, say, torture or lie or kill innocent persons.

A) Does Kant's theory really have this result? If so, which actions really do end up in this category (or in other words, which maxims does the Categorial Imperative ALWAYS strike down)?

B) If this really is Kant's position: what reply can he make to this objection?

Answer 1

A) Kants categorical Imperative does not make unintuitive assumptions and correlations, but goes according to the motive behind an action and the intent of the action. It aims to venture beyond the scope of the physical act and to the cognitive thought behind it.

B) Kant can obviously not boast such a position, and make his objection on the basis of the categorical imperative, saying that, the only truth to be found is that one cannot act in accordance to a feeling that one cannot expect to become a long and prevailing law.