Survival vs. The Categorical Imperative:

Survival vs. The Categorical Imperative: A Look at Kant's Relevance in Modern Economic Morality

Some moral choices are easy to make, especially when the consequences do not involve pain or sacrifice on the chooser's part. But it is the moral choices made in the face of difficult consequences that truly reveal the strength of our moral foundations. Many families are now coming face-to-face with this quandary as they struggle to make ethical decisions that would have seemed cut-and-dry not long ago. Considerations of economic survival are calling into question deeply-held social values and creating a sense of ethical paralysis for a growing number of citizens. In the end, many people are being forced to weigh different systems of morality to determine the best ethical decisions. Even in difficult situations like these, however, it is important to follow a consistent moral system regardless of the situational consequences.

Consider the example of Ben and Sarah, a young middle-class couple fully invested in the American dream. In 2005, they decided to purchase a roomy house in hopes of starting a family. They were able to secure financing without a down payment through an adjustable-rate mortgage. For two and a half years, everything went well. The mortgage rate remained steady, and the monthly payment was well-covered by the husband's work as a contractor and the wife's teaching salary. There was even a bit left over every month for luxuries, and when their first child arrived in 2008, Sarah was able to leave her teaching job to be a stay-at-home mom.

The first sign of trouble occurred in the fall of 2008, when the interest rate on their mortgage jumped sharply and along with it their monthly payment. They streamlined their budget to compensate, spending less on entertainment and food. Then, as the recession took hold across the country, Ben's contracting work dried up. He was able to find part-time work for a mediocre wage, but it was not nearly enough to match his previous income. Sarah began looking for a job, but with school budgets tightening, she was unable to find openings. Before long, their small savings account was depleted and their utility bills were months late. With no relief in sight and with a young child to feed and clothe, Ben and Sarah faced a difficult decision: continue to labor under a stifling mortgage payment and risk being unable to provide basic necessities for themselves and their child, or walk away from the house and start over on a smaller scale, leaving the house and its accompanying debt in the hands of the bank. With the baby on her mind, Sarah argued for the strategic default route. Ben, whose father had grown up in the Depression and had always stressed the importance of personal responsibility and ethics, had deep moral reservations.

Both Ben and Sarah raise valid moral points. As a mother, Sarah's first priority and primary moral obligation is the care of her child, and all other moral considerations are secondary. Ben is laboring under a more societal concept of morality passed down to him by his father and by the culture in which he was raised. This mindset stresses the moral obligation of following through with one's promises and being honest in one's dealings. Should Ben and Sarah choose to default, they would in essence have lied in their promise to pay the bank for their house. Some could even say that they have stolen from the bank in failing to pay the remainder of the interest charged for the mortgage. The underlying question of Ben and Sarah's dilemma is whether or not the moral obligation to ensure the health and safety of one's family trumps the moral obligation to follow through on promises.

Though their economic situation may be uniquely 21st century, Ben and Sarah's underlying ethical quandary is actually an old one, and has been addressed by many moral philosophers. At the end of the eighteenth century, German philosopher Immanuel Kant addressed this very issue in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals and other texts of moral philosophy that followed. According to Kant, morality is built upon the concept of imperatives for action. These imperatives might be hypothetical -- that is, based upon some subjective experience -- or categorical -- that is, based on an objective principle. In his efforts to build a consistent and rationally-grounded moral philosophy, Kant stressed the importance of the categorical imperative as the only foundation of a logically sound morality.

In order to understand what Kant meant by the categorical imperative, we must first understand his concept of pure practical reason. Kant tied the concept of human autonomy firmly to man's ability to reason, in particular his ability to apply the a priori principles provided by pure practical reason. Because man is equipped with these a priori principles, he is able to make consistently logical decisions regardless of the subjective circumstances surrounding him. This is critical to Kant's view of morality. Kant insists that in order to make a purely moral decision, we must consider the scenario if everyone were to make the choice that we wish to make. As he puts it, "Act only according to that maxim whereby at the same time you can will that it should become universal law" (Kant 30).

He illustrates this with the example of the lying promise. One cannot, he says, intentionally make a promise that one does not intend to fulfill. Why? Because if everyone were to make lying promises, no one would be able to trust the intentions of another human being and human society would become nonsensical. Because making a lying promise would introduce a logical inconsistency into human society if it were to be made a universal principle, our obligation not to make a lying promise is a categorical imperative, dictated entirely by our pure practical reason and not reliant on external circumstances or motives.

In choosing the morally consistent action in accordance with the a priori rational principle that human interaction relies on the assumption of honesty, we are not only acting morally but we are contributing to what Kant calls the "kingdom of ends" (39). This is an ideal community governed entirely by rational law in which everyone acts according to categorical imperatives in fulfilling their duties. The important moral characteristic of this ideal society is that everyone respects his own dignity and the dignity of others, and no one treats another purely as a means to a self-interested end. But, as John Atwell points out, this concept is "so far removed from 'actual' life that it can play no 'realistic' role in what human beings ought or ought not to do" (152).

How does Kant's moral theory apply to the case of Ben and Sarah? On the surface, the example of the lying promise seems applicable. If they were to strategically default on their house, it may appear to the bank that they engaged in a lying promise when they financed the house. However, we know that they had every intention of paying for the house when they financed it, and only their drastic change in circumstances have led them to the point of default. Because Kant presents the lying promise as a moral choice, and because Ben and Sarah did not make that choice when they financed, it cannot be said that they engaged in a lying promise, even if there promise ends up being broken.