In a world overflowing with demands, temptations, distractions, and possibilities one of life’s great conflicts is how to choose wisely. We discover at a young age that there will be a lifetime of decisions to make and that when selecting a course of action to satisfy making these decisions there is usually a single right way to act and many more wrong ways to act. Most, if not all of us, are compelled to determine which from among the array of options available to us is that one right way to go. Sometimes resolving which way to opt is easy and at other times agonizingly difficult. This very human predicament is as old as time and as relevant as ever during any era, including our own.

The topic I am attempting to introduce is the fraught notion of morality. When contemplating the very concept of rightness, we are necessarily entering into moral choice. For some people I will assume this is not an excruciating endeavor. I imagine there are those who are comfortable with their virtuous outlook on life and do not struggle with knowing what the right thing is to do each and every time they are confronted with a quandary. However, there are a whole lot of others, me included, for whom upright self-guidance is a frequent struggle. It is for us, the less than perfect, the ethically challenged, that I would like to direct the following exploration.

My initiation to morality as both a concept and as a precept was via the Catholic Church. The flavor of Catholicism I knew was practiced in Massachusetts, where I grew up. Therefore, Irish Catholics heavily influenced it. The people, family, neighbors, faith, and culture I first perceived were largely formulated by second and third generation Irish immigrants. I remember there being strict rules of engagement; hard and fast frontiers between what were acceptable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and which were not. Morality was serious business. I was left more in fear of it rather than of awe, which meant I was compelled to either push against or to recoil in the face of such fear. My general reaction skewed toward confrontation of what I came to see as an onerous set of commands and controls. From the elders’ point of view, I slipped through the cracks.

My story is but one of literally billions of stories of how people are inculcated with moral principles—approximately 117 billion if we count past generations of people now long gone. Moral themes and values are influenced by the cultural traditions from which they arise and by the aptitude of those who take it upon themselves to pass on chaste lessons to the next generation. Therefore, moral truths are a direct reflection of the cultures from which they spring. Beliefs are disseminated with varying degrees of fine-tuning for the times in which they are expressed. As is to be expected, culturally derived morals will either clash with or integrate with the teachings of other traditions. Congruence can engender peace among disparate groups while discord among moral conventions can and does lead to serious conflicts or war.

I am drawn to wanting to understand the nature of morality. In contemplating morality one thing seems quite obvious at first glance. Morality appears to exist most often in a social context. When identifying common cross-cultural moral themes, they mostly pertain to how people should treat one another. Being caring, fair, loyal, respectful, and courageous are ordinarily accepted creeds of a social moral code. These descriptors serve as guidelines for ethical treatment of our fellow individuals. Perhaps, morality only makes sense within a collective situation. If so, that is fine, but accepting morality as commonly shared standards only makes it akin to a set of laws. Valuable and important, yes, but hardly carrying the weight of a divine or sacred fundamental tenet.

Some would point out that morality does have an internal subjective relevance. Another universal credo calls for each of us to be pure and sanctified. Even looking at this belief though, the directive to be spiritually clean comes from traditionally based sources, such as scripture or philosophical texts prepared by others. Morality as an absolutely intrinsic feature of an individual life would need to be a priori—a self-evident realization each of us is born with. The question then becomes, is morality at its core part of our hard-wiring as human beings or is its origin as cultural doctrine developed by wise elders and passed down from generation to generation?

A view for trying to understand the nature of morality can be gained by looking at how the Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) addressed this question. Kant is a towering figure in western philosophy. His sophisticated inquiries of ontology, epistemology, political theory, and aesthetics have been remarkably influential. As too have been his contributions to the philosophy of morals. His speculation and analysis about the significance and sources of morality and its role in what it means to be human was a momentous achievement. It is very hard to imagine considering the nature of morality, especially in the western world, without contemplating Kant’s moral system. Of relevance to this essay is the question of whether Kant’s moral philosophy is merely an interesting Enlightenment-era historical relic or if it retains guidance for modern people seeking to understand morality in their lives today.

It is helpful to know that Immanuel Kant was raised in a pietistic Lutheran family, which was a style of Lutheranism dedicated to religious devotion, Biblical literalism, and personal humility. This upbringing certainly influenced his manner and lifestyle. For example, he was known to live a very ordered and disciplined life. However, he devoted his professional life to philosophy, not to religion. That said, his intricate philosophical system regarding morality has a grounding in fundamentals that appear consistent with religious conviction. Kant believed in the requirement that morality must be defined within a framework of universal principle applicable to all people from all cultures. The concept of universality implies sanctified unity originating from a supreme and all-encompassing source. In Kant’s thinking, allegiance to this source is the foundation of moral canon.

As was typical of Kant’s intellectual style, he peered deeply into the essence of how the human mind, in particular its ability to reason, set the stage for each individual to choose the right path, to know what ought to be done, to realize the actions which are good in themselves. Kant identifies the mind’s a priori knowledge, a knowledge that is innate and not dependent on experience; a knowledge which by its very nature presents the human mind with what he calls pure practical reasoning, the springboard of moral law. Here too, we see the impact of Kant’s religious training—a belief in an essential goodness ingrained into the mind of each individual person. However, unlike the precursors of the Enlightenment, such as Descartes and Spinoza, who credited each person’s capacity to think just so far before claiming further responsibility for human cognition rested with God, Kant is content with asserting the human mind has all the potentiality it needs to derive moral truth.

From this starting point, Kant constructs a paradigm consisting of what he calls the Categorial Imperative—the virtuous obligations to be followed. Kant formulated a deontology or an ethical system in which personal conduct was based on what one ought to do and what one was obliged to do. My initial thought upon learning this centered on the author or originator of moral thought and deed. Surely an external and omnipotent presence must be decreeing moral law from on high. But no. Kant’s claim is that true unadulterated morality springs forth from the mind’s pure reasoning, the capacity we each have to exercise our free will such that the right thing should naturally be done. The things which ought to be done are self-generated and internally driven. This is an extraordinary claim and a stark departure from the scholastic theological tradition that dominated Europe since Aquinas. Human reason, the capability to think, draw conclusions, and form judgments are the source of our virtue.

Kant envisioned that collectively we could create a righteous society in which we could ethically monitor ourselves and each other. A community where people would not exploit one another for selfish reasons and where the dignity of each individual was to be respected. Kant’s Categorical Imperative strongly emphasized universality, the notion that human derived rational moral rules applied to all people equitably. A hallmark of the Enlightenment in general was the introduction of individual rights and egalitarianism. Kant contributed to this social advancement as one of the Enlightenment’s most profound thinkers when he implemented universality as a key feature to his morality project. Universality explicitly states that moral treatment of all must be more highly valued than the achievement of personalized consequences such as individual goals or desired outcomes. Respect for all of humanity and all individuals as an end in itself superseding private needs and appetites is a major attribute of the Categorical Imperative.

Another key element of the Categorical Imperative has to do with consistency meaning that moral choice must not contradict rational thought. The standards Kant used to measure rational consistency refer to logical congruity; universality; satisfaction of “perfect duty”; and respect for oneself and for others. I have previously mentioned the roles played by universality and mutual respect in Kant’s moral system, so I will turn my attention to logical congruity and perfect duty.

Logical congruity is my term for what Kant is talking about when he says “contradiction”. Kant cautions against a moral decision that negates reasoned thought. Take the behavior of deception, an example Kant uses in one of his works. He imagines an individual who intends to take a loan he does not plan to pay back. Deception is not moral because if this practice were universalized, then no one would lend money anymore knowing they would not be paid back. The behavior of deception contradicts the action of borrowing. This would be an immoral detriment to society because lending is an economically viable procedure. The same could be said of lying. If lying became a universal custom, then we would not believe one another leading to a serious social inefficiency, if not flaw, in the use of language. Practical language usage would be contradicted. Hence, lying is immoral. Similar examples can be imagined regarding theft, violence, infidelity, etc.

Perfect duty according to Kant refers to strict adherence by each individual (and collections of individuals) to consistently follow moral truths that feature universality, avoidance of contradiction, and reciprocal respect. To be a moral person means to guide oneself into choosing perfect duties at all times. We should fully realize the necessity of exercising perfect duties. A mind that is focused on pure practical reason, as Kant calls it, will naturally be a moral mind. It will do what it ought to do because the mind is pure in its intention. Moral systems are deontological in that they prescribe proper conduct. Religious constructs base their deontology on God’s wishes. Kant bases his deontology on the pure practical reason of individuals.

I return to the question I posed earlier, is Kant’s elaborate morality framework merely an interesting esoteric exploration or does it have practical benefits for people looking to lead a more intentional moral life? I would like to share my impressions in an attempt to arrive at an answer. I would also like to begin by noting why morality matters in our lives. Its significance can be assessed both at an individual spiritual and psychological level and also at a social level.

To state the obvious, mental health is necessary for a flourishing life. To a large extent our mental health, if we are fortunate to experience it, is a result of luck and fortitude. We are born who we are—an amalgamation of ancestral influences and environmental conditions. Given the rational capacity most of us have we forge lives of idiosyncrasy and uniqueness in what become our personal spaces. To flourish as individuals, we require degrees of cognitive astuteness and emotional solace. These can manifest in a variety of contexts one of which involves our moral resolutions. Developing and refining moral character into lives of integrity give us strength and means to fulfill lives of purpose. Survival may be our base necessity, but keeping our heads above the torrent of all life’s problems is not enough. Light has to shine to cultivate our souls. Moral endurance can illuminate our existence.

Development of personal soundness can bring a sense of peace and reassurance. However, to think of morality as solely a personal pursuit seems exceedingly incomplete. Morality plays its largest role in how it enhances the quality of interpersonal interactions. Living life can have profound joys, but it also has weighty challenges. Finding delights and meeting difficulties alone can be unfathomable. Reliance on one another to greater and lesser degrees is crucial. Trust and relative certitude about the nature and intentions of our fellow human beings is what we crave, what we require in order to endure and to blossom. It is here, in the deep connections with others; here where we give and receive; here where sustaining our individual and collective lives is the ultimate goal to which morality is fundamental.

At a practical level among the vast collection of all people the Categorical Imperative can and is seen as a high bar, as a strict standard to be practiced by each and every individual. It requires a universal deontological acceptance of right and wrong with no tolerable exceptions to the moral order. However, as we all know, there are people doing wrong all of the time and it is done because we each play a mental game with ourselves that allows us to make an exception to moral rules. For example, there could be a time when we take something that does not belong to us. We know that we do not want a world where everyone takes things that do not belong to them, but we justify to ourselves that our reasons for breaking the rule this time is warranted. We know that driving a car under the influence is wrong and dangerous. We want roads that are safe to drive our families on. Yet, even after drinking too much we get behind the wheel of our car telling ourselves that we can do it this time and that we will be careful. If we think about it, we can identify within our own behaviors instances of personal wrongdoing based on a greater desire to satisfy our wants, needs, and passions over the universality of what is morally proper.

Therefore, can a more than two-hundred-year-old moral philosophy formulated by a Prussian academic assist twenty-first century humanity in trying to find its way in this world? In my judgment, yes it can. Now it could be said that Kant’s morality construct is fanciful and utopian and not grounded in the cutthroat reality we see all around us. This a reasonable attitude to have. We can make claim that to always do what we ought to do is too difficult and impractical in all situations. But in assessing the utility of the Categorical Imperative I am not going to succumb to these perceived weaknesses. I will instead recognize and appreciate the elegance and spiritual nature of the model. Rather, I will allow myself to be attracted to the key aspects of the Categorical Imperative. Features such as morality originating from the mind’s capacity for pure practical reasoning; the universality of moral potential across all of humankind; respect for the personhood of others; and valuing moral rules that make perfect sense without contradiction for everyone are characteristics that give Kant’s framework both a metaphysical greatness and a practical usefulness. For anyone seeking to ground or reestablish moral direction in their life, Kant’s Categorical Imperative provides fruitful guidance and direction.