by Eric Corson
The Ten Commandments presented in the Biblical Book of Exodus can be considered Moral Imperatives by Kant theory. Specifically, the latter six commandments, which will be specified below, can easily be defended as moral actions. The first four are more difficult to defend by Kant theories, because they specify how man is to relate to God rather than to other people, which was Kant’s main concern with ethics. As a result, the latter six, specifying the nature of human interaction will be analyzed.
First is the tenet “Honor your father and your mother” . Under most situations, one’s elders have more experience with life, and as a general rule parents have the best interests of their children at heart. If these are so, then it is not unreasonable to state that their opinions about the actions one should take in life are likely to be good advice. As a result, the idea that they should be respected enough to be listened to is also not unreasonable. In fact, if everyone were to listen to their parent’s advice, even if they chose not to obey it, there would likely be a lower incidence of ‘bad’ things in society like teenage pregnancy, drug use, or drunkenness. In addition, when, from a longer perspective of time, those of the younger generation realized how much easier life had been when they chose to listen to their parent’s advice, or how much easier life would have been had they listened to their parent’s advice, the cycle is then encouraged to continue as they assure their children that honoring their parent’s wisdom and experience can have good results. Therefore, it would seem that the commandment could be univeralized into one of Kant’s Moral Imperatives.
“You shall not murder” is the sixth Commandment, and the second on this list. This one is most easily demonstrated by universalizing the converse of the command. If murder were considered appropriate morally, then there would be a decrease in trust among those who have reason to dislike each other. Since many aspects of society depend on cooperation between those not necessarily in agreement (notably politics and business, two major aspects of American life), there would be a decrease in productivity in these areas (or, in the case of politics, a nullification of any minor gains that currently manage to accidentally occur). This would reduce the ability to function as a culture, and reduce the likelihood of the culture to continue, which would defy the imperative to murder at will. Therefore, the converse, stating that to murder is wrong must be accepted as a better alternative by which to define a Moral Imperative.
“You shall not commit adultery” states the seventh Commandment. The marriage bond is one largely based on three principles: love, trust, and exclusivity. While adulterous actions may not, it can be argued, affect the degree of love within a relationship, they can certainly affect the other two aspects. When a marriage begins, the phrase “Forsaking all other ‘til death do us part” is traditionally included. This exclusivity principle allows the husband and wife the right to know each other more intimately than is generally possible within normal human relationships. In order to maintain that level of intimacy, there must also be a degree of trust in the relationship. If one states that it is wrong to seek sexual companionship outside of the marriage bond, the tenet actively promotes the exclusivity principle while protecting trust, if it is indeed an implicit agreement between husband and wife that adultery is wrong (which it would be, were the ethic universalized). Therefore, it would seem that universalization of the ethic that adultery is wrong is not self-defeating and therefore morally correct by the Categorical Imperative.
“You shall not steal” . Were this statement universalized, and universally followed, there would be no ill effects that can reasonably result. Keys and locks would need less use, there would be less fear about leaving personal property unattended, and people would be less likely to fear those they don’t know, because they won’t have the concern of being robbed. There is no self-defeat inherent here, indicating another Moral Imperative.
“You shall not give false witness” . In other words, do not lie. This command is certainly in line with Kant’s views, because he very clearly states his position that lying under any circumstance is wrong in his essays.
Finally there is the command “You shall not covet.” This command supports those above- both murder and theft are less likely when one has chosen to be content with one’s own possessions rather than needing the things others have to make them happy. In addition, from a Utilitarian point of view, universal contentment rather than envy enhances the general happiness of people, and is therefore a good thing. Universalizing this ethical command also causes no inherent contradictions.
It would seem clear than Kant’s Categorical Imperative can demonstrate that the latter six of the Biblical Ten Commandments are reasonable Moral Imperatives by which to live.
<< Back to the Library
