Applying Kants Categorical Imperative to Ethical Debates – A Deep Dive into Abortion
According to Rachels and Rachels (2019), the first Kantian categorical imperative posits that if one accepts considerations as reasons in one case, one should accept the reasons in other cases. This is consistent with the ‘universal’ concept, which implies that if moral standards are valid, they should be binding on all people at all times. Kant’s assertions are consistent with the call for consistency in morality, and no rational person should deny them. The major implication of Kant’s insights is that no one should regard themselves as special to the extent that they act in ways forbidden to others or think that their interests override other people’s interests.
In Kant’s view regarding capital punishment, the death penalty should only be imposed on those who commit murder or treason. Most European democracies have since abolished the death sentence, but it is still retained in authoritarian states (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). However, the US presents an interesting consideration given the non-consistent application of the death sentence. Some offenders get executed once they exhaust their appeal window, but some continue serving jail time, uncertain about when they may be executed. All offenders serving a death sentence should be executed, or the country should abolish the death sentence altogether to avoid inconsistency if Kant’s insights about consistency are anything to go by.
Based on Kant’s position on universalizability, the state should agree on the maxims that constitute capital punishment and apply the death sentence consistently. If, for instance, relevant stakeholders agree that they will align with Kant’s position that the death sentence should apply to murder and treason offenders, then it should do so consistently (Potter, 2002). According to the first imperative, introducing justifications such as the underlying causes of offending, such as mental health and socioeconomic challenges, to excuse some offenders should be avoided.
On the second imperative that seeks respect for humanity, Kant’s insights imply that the justice system should not use individuals as a means to an end but the end itself. This insight invalidates some of the arguments raised by proponents of the death sentence (Potter, 2002). For instance, some proponents in the debate cite the death sentence as a deterrent to future offenses, but that is wrong, according to Kant. Kant would allow the death sentence if it would help the deceased victim’s family get justice.
References
Potter Jr, N. T. (2002). Kant and capital punishment today. J. Value Inquiry, 36, 267.
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
Initial Post Instructions
Kant’s famous First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative reads, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant taught morality as a matter of following maxims of living that reflect absolute laws. “Universal” is a term that allows for no exceptions, and what is universal applies always and everywhere. Don’t forget about the second formulation of the categorical imperative which states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” It is just as important.
Applying Kants Categorical Imperative to Ethical Debates – A Deep Dive into Abortion
For the initial post, elaborate in detail the ethical positions arrived at by applying the Kantian categorical imperative to an issue that is the subject of some debate in our society. (Examples might include animal rights, stem cell research, abortion, the death penalty, and so forth.) Then, evaluate these Kantian positions, discussing whether they are convincing, logical, correct, or consistent.