Kant's Categorical Imperative as an Axiom for Lifestyle Behaviours.
Immanuel Kant’s famous categorical imperative states that you shouldn’t do anything unless it could become a universal maxim. As a moral ideal, it is flawed, mostly because it is lacking in nuance. Aristotle and Confucius well knew that there was no one-size-fits-all universal moral principle which is why Artistotle, particularly, recommended practical wisdom.
Practical wisdom is simply that in each ethical situation a person must judge what they think to be the best and most moral thing to do. This acknowledges that real life is messy, context matters, and no two situations are alike. Aristotle’s aim in cultivating virtues and practical wisdom was to provide a toolkit to apply in each given circumstance where moral reasoning was required.
The problem with Kant’s categorical imperative is that it doesn’t have that flexibility baked in. Considering whether something should be universally applied is often a helpful perspective when considering a moral action, however, in real life, it is likely that the right and best course of action in a given circumstance might not be an action that should be universalised. In moral theory, there is little that can be taken as absolute because we are always dealing with nuance.
This is less the case when dealing with environmental and possible certain technological issues. Here we can see how Kant’s categorical imperative might be reframed as a useful tool for thinking about second and third-order consequences of actions that have an environmental element. And these days that is just about everything.
Hannah Arendt in the opening of her book “The Human Condition” asked the question - “what are we doing?” She was responding to the technological developments of her era remarking on the launch of Sputnik in the last 19050s as being a defining moment in the history of mankind. Frankly, I think she’d be aghast at the technological developments we have had since then and the frightening lack of standing back to consider collectively what we are doing. Most of the time we have continued unabated racing towards a precipice without once thinking what we are doing.
Kant’s categorical imperative might help us to consider what we are doing. As humans, we are pretty bad at considering second and third-order consequences. What this means is that while we can see pretty quickly whether a particular action is good or bad, we fail to see what the further consequences of that action are. More often than not there are hidden consequences that we’d prefer not to have. What this requires is that slow system two thinking that Danial Kahneman talks about. It is effortful which is why we try to avoid it, but considering whether something should be a universal maxim or not we might see that action we think is good might actually turn out to be bad.
A simple example is our continued use of plastics.
Plastics are great, and incredibly useful because they can be moulded into any shape with varying degrees of toughness. If I look around me the keyboard I’m typing on, my sharpy on the desk, my foam roller, my iPhone case and the cable for my MacBook are all made of plastic. And that’s all with barely lifting my eyes from my desk. The problem doesn’t so much come from this kind of plastic use, it more often comes from the single use of plastics.
Single-use plastics are again useful because they are convenient. As a consumer, you don’t need to think about anything the cup, the spoon, and the bottle are all provided for you so that you can just enjoy whatever goods it is you have purchased. When done, you simply throw away the plastic. That’s about as far as people think. Once the plastic is thrown away not another thought is given to it. Easy.
Except. What if everyone did that? Not just everyone in your country, but everyone in the world?
To varying degrees we all are. And what is the consequence of this? The Great Pacific Garbage patch, beaches covered in washed-up plastic, plastic bags at the bottom of the Mariana trench-the deepest most inaccessible place on the planet for humans. The universal consequences of our convenient plastics are staggering. But that’s not even the worst of it.
Recent research has found microplastics in the human body. And not just a few people. The sample size was small but of thirteen people undergoing surgery eleven had microplastics in their lungs. This is not new. As far back as 1998 plastic fibres were found in patients with lung cancer-97% of the samples had plastic contamination.
What are we doing? We are making lifestyle choices that are not only damaging the environment, they are very likely killing us directly. Plastic pollution is a huge hidden public health issue, more so than smoking.
And it is not just plastics. If everyone in the world drove SUVs, consumed the amount of electricity, and ate the amount of beef that people in so-called “developed” countries did, we would be in an even worse state than we already are. And as far as we are able to measure, we are already heading for disaster. Even collapse.
This is not the fringe belief of a few pot-heads. There is hard science to back up the claim that the path we are on will lead to catastrophic consequences. And not in 100 years, much sooner than we dare to think. If you are observant, if you notice the natural world at all, you can see and feel it. (Yesterday in Tokyo - April 10th, 2022 - it was 27 degrees Celcius; that’s not normal)
There is a growing consensus that sustainable, the buzzword of the last twenty or so years, is not enough. The Sustainable Development Goals are a worthy aspiration, but they are no longer enough. The reason is that sustainable almost by definition sits at a balance point, it means behaviour that does no harm. It is essentially a neutral point, not bad but also not good either. What we desperately need are regenerative goals. Actions that have a net positive effect. Actions that create and enhance life, all life. Actions that repair and add to the systems of life in the environment and in our communities.
So, back to Kant.
The categorical imperative can give us pause to think about the negatives effects of an action, but often those effects are unknowable. At the time we didn’t know that smoking causes cancer, that CO2 causes global warming, and that plastics would be such a risk to human health, but we do now. Yet we persist. That is the definition of stupidity.
However, the categorical imperative might help us find actions that have a net positive effect. We can ask the question, "what actions can I take that if everybody did would make the world a better place?" We will find that these actions have a net positive effect and a regenerative impact. In fact, this becomes a radical act.
Eating locally grown food, better yet growing food in my garden or on my balcony. Could everyone do this? Yes! Would it have a net positive effect? Yes.
Exercising daily. Could everyone do this? Yes. Would it have a net positive effect? Yes.
Talking with neighbours, friends and family face-to-face rather than scrolling social media. Could everyone do this? Yes! Would it have a net positive effect? Yes.
Read a book on the train rather than play a mindless game on my smartphone. Could everyone do this? Yes! Would it have a net positive effect? Yes.
Cycling to the shops instead of taking the car. Could everyone do this? Yes! Would it have a net positive effect? Yes.
These examples are simple, even simplistic, but that doesn’t detract from the point that we can find and carry out countless actions that when considered as universal maxims as well as individual behaviours, have a net positive impact on us and our world. Thinking this way, we can begin to make the switch from degenerative to regenerative living.
Note: I wrote this in one spurt in about an hour. There are no doubt many points in here that need further research, thought and deeper thinking. Despite that, I maintain that some consideration of universality while not always useful for moral decision making has practical applications when considering our lifestyles, how we live with respect to the environment and the kind of world we want.