Advertisement

Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Moral Worth of Increasing Profits

  • Karsten M. ThielEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter is an introduction to the categorical imperative and its application. The categorical imperative is applied in order to find out about the moral worth of a particular action. However, Kant does not apply the categorical imperative to actions immediately. In fact, he evaluates actions by reflecting on the maxim inherent to an action. It is important to realize, first, that the fact that a particular action has moral worth does not imply that this action ought to be accomplished. Second, an action with no moral worth is not immoral, at least not necessarily. This chapter focuses on the most difficult case of actions, which Kant calls action in conformity with duty. Most interpreters argue that Kant is a purist and a rigorist for whom an action in conformity with duty cannot have moral worth. This chapter, however, questions this view.

Keywords

Business Profit Self-interest Ethics Immanuel Kant Categorical imperative Hypothetical imperative Evaluation Moral judgment Moral worth Duty Obligation Purism Rigorism 

References

  1. 1.
    Audi R (2010) The place of ethical theory in business ethics. In: Brenkert GG, Beauchamp TL (eds) The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 46–69Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowie NE (1999) Business ethics. A Kantian perspective. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Friedman M (1970/2007) The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In: Zimmerli WC, Richter K, Holzinger M (eds) Corporate ethics and corporate governance. Springer, Berlin, pp 173–178Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Green RM, Donovan A (2010) The methods of business ethics. In: Brenkert GG, Beauchamp TL (eds) The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–45Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heath J, Moriarty J, Norman W (2010) Business ethics and (or as) political philosophy. Bus Ethics Quart 20:427–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henrich D (1975) Die Deduktion des Sittengesetzes. In: Schwan A (ed) Denken im Schatten des Nihilismus. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp 55–112Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henson RG (1979) What Kant might have said: moral worth and the overdetermination of dutiful action. Philos Rev 88:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herman B (1993) The practice of moral judgment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kant I (1902 ff) Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. In: Kants Gesammelte Schriften, vol IV, Royal [later: Prussian]. Academy of Sciences, Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kant I (1998) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals, (trans: Gregor M). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korsgaard C (1997) The normativity of instrumental reason. In: Cullity G, Gaut B (eds) Ethics and practical reason. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 215–254Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuehn M (2009) Ethics and anthropology in the development of Kant’s moral philosophy. In: Timmermann J (ed) Kant’s groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. A critical guide. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 7–28Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Neill O (1984/1989) Constructions of reason. Explorations of Kant’s practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paton HJ (1947/1967) The categorical imperative. A study in Kant’s moral philosophy. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sen A (1993) Does business ethics make economic sense? Bus Ethics Quart 3:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thiel K (2008) Über Kants vermeintlichen Rigorismus. In: Rohden V et al (eds) Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants. Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, vol 3. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 439–449Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations