Kant’s Categorical Imperative IRL
Briefly, Immanuel Kant developed a moral concept he called the Categorical Imperative. According to Kant, in order to act morally, one must act strictly out of a sense of duty, and the mandates of duty requires that the act result in no benefit whatsoever for the actor.
(Yes, I know there is more to it than that, but it is this aspect that I want to consider here.)
For decades, I have maintained that moral judgments can only be made on the basis of outcomes. If someone performs an act that results in a Good outcome, then the act was moral. It stands, then, that if someone performs an act that results in a Bad outcome, then the act was immoral. Even if the actor never intended to do something bad/immoral. Thus, morally speaking, intentions are irrelevant.
As a real-life example, consider the actions of the “Internet Phenomenon” known as Mr. Beast (aka Jimmy Donaldson). In one of his philanthropic “stunts,” he paid for 1000 cataract operations, helping people, including many children, see clearly.
The headline in Forbes Magazine read:
