The question of what is right or wrong in human relations has remained a central concern of the philosophers, beginning from the time of Socrates to our time. Thus, there has been a general disagreement among moral philosophers, as to what makes an action either morally right or morally wrong. In his moral philosophy, Kant had asked: “how can I find whether the action I intend to perform is morally right or wrong? What is the yardstick for distinguishing right from wrong? In answering his own questions, Kant posited a theory – the categorical imperative – that explains what makes an action right or wrong and the yardstick for distinguishing what is right from what is wrong. This paper critically examines Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives as well as showcases some morally-worthy elements in the categorical imperatives that could guide human actions.
The paper argues clearly that Kant’s categorical imperatives is inadequate and therefore, cannot be the right standard or norm of morality for man. The adoption of Kant’s categorical imperatives as the universal laws of action would lead to so many contradictions and problems. Hence, Kant’s categorical imperative has been found to be grossly inadequate and so cannot be taken as the yardstick for determining what makes an action right or wrong.

Download Full Page



<<< Go Back