Mari asked:

Why does Kant think that we must think of ourselves as subject to the categorical imperative?

How does a utilitarian decide how to act?

============

Kant argues firstly that all men are subject to the categorical imperative as rational beings, and
secondly that it has validity for all men in virtue of the freedom of the will.

The categorical imperative is a moral law which holds for all persons as an objective principle which is
universally valid and unconditional. An objective law says what oughtto happen regardless of
subjective impulses and inclinations.

The law is unconditional insofar as it applies to every person as a rational being. It is derived from the
general concept of a rational being so that moral obligation need not depend on the idea of a human
being as a feeling creature, since as such we are liable to be corrupted. Kant claims that every
person rationally believes that he ought to treat others as he would be treated himself. We know this
is what we ought to do, so the imperative is categorical, representing a duty which we cannot
rationally deny.

We are not just subject to this law, but make it ourselves. This is the second aspect of the categorical
imperative. The law is universally valid because it represents the will of every person. This is because
it is not based on any interest. We conceive of ourselves as having a free will with which to act, and in
practical reasoning, the will has the ability to overcome subjective motives. This is so for every
rational being. As we can overcome subjective motives, and we rationally recognise what we ought to
do, we are able to will that this duty become universal law, valid for us and others.

It is not that we "must" think of ourselves as subject to the categorical imperative. We just aresubject
to it in that it is what we "ought" to do and "would" do if we acted with reason rather than inclination.
For the truly good "holy man" there is no duty. The categorical imperative is an objective duty for all
people who fail to act upon it.

On utilitarianism: It is the main drawback of utilitarianism that there is a practical difficulty in trying to
assess amounts of happiness or welfare consequent upon an action. The intended consequences will
not necessarily be the actual ones, and not all consequences are foreseeable. Whereas a number of
outcomes of an action might be foreseen, the probabilities of each outcome can't. Even if it could,
how many people understand probability theory? Rule utilitarianism supposedly answers this problem
in that it considers the utility of a rule, such as "always repay your debts". However, this can conflict
with act utilitarianism. It might not be act utilitarian to repay your debt to your uncle with three children
when you have just discovered his drug/gambling habit. So at the level of actual practical reasoning,
rule utilitarianism must be reduced to act utilitarianism with its unsolved problems.

The act utilitarian can only act as any other agent using practical reasoning. We never know what all
the consequences of an action are, whether it is a moral action or not. But as a moralagent whose
duty it is to maximize happiness or welfare, weight might properly be given not to the agent's own
welfare but the welfare of others.

Rachel Browne