Abstract

The article explores the fundamental concept of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative in the context of its impact on political theory, moral self-determination, and the problem of the relationship between good and evil. Particular attention is paid to the question «What ought I to do?» from «The Critique of Practical Reason», which Kant examines through the lens of freedom, morality and will. Practical action in Kantian philosophy is interpreted not only as an active deed but also as negation or abstention from action, reflecting a profound inner moral choice. The problem of the a priori nature of good and evil is considered. Kant argues that goodness is not an innate property of a person but requires conscious choice and effort. This idea defines the principle of the moral law as an internal compass that contrasts with societal laws. Special emphasis is placed on Kant’s thesis about the primacy of morality over politics and law, which has become a foundation for the development of liberal-democratic concepts of statehood. The article also analyzes the three formulas of the categorical imperative, which are universal in nature and guide individuals toward actions based on the universality of moral law, respect for humanity as an end, and autonomous legislative will. The transcendental character of the imperative is discussed as a fact that cannot be theoretically proven but is definitive for moral activity. Particular attention is given to Hannah Arendt’s concept of the «banality of evil», formulated during her analysis of the trial of the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann. The work examines the thesis that evil is often perpetrated by ordinary people acting under principles of obedience, social conformity and a distorted understanding of moral duty. Evil is interpreted as a refusal to take responsibility through excessive compliance and bureaucratic passivity, which replaces moral choice with adherence to external orders. Additionally, Slavoj Žižek’s theses are analyzed, where he critically examines the concept of the «banality of evil» and highlights the excessive enjoyment some perpetrators derive from executing orders. The article argues that the human choice between moral duty and personal interest is a key factor determining the boundary between good and evil. Overall, the article offers a multidimensional analysis of Kant’s moral and political philosophy and its modern interpretations, emphasizing the complexity of the interaction between freedom, will, morality, and social circumstances. The findings are interdisciplinary, combining ethical, political, and philosophical aspects, allowing for an assessment of the influence of moral principles on political theory, legal systems, and human social behavior.