Abstract

The article examines the possibilities of applying the idea of the categorical imperative as a determinant for Kant’s moral and philosophical doctrine in the political context. It has been found that in certain situations, unquestioning adherence to this moral precept is significantly difficult and not always acceptable. The criticism of the categorical imperative from the perspective of the theorist of «pure theory of law» H. Kelsen, who emphasized that individuals may seek to make a universal law of a rule that only they would like to follow, but from the point of view of others, such a rule would be unacceptable. The intention to impose one's will on others in some cases can lead to dictatorship and arbitrariness. To resolve this situation, the author cites the views of J. S. Mill, who believed that in order to prevent relations in the community, in particular in judicial proceedings, from becoming formal and full of falsehood, the most important task of government is the development of moral virtues and education of citizens. The difficulties that arise with the formulation of a categorical imperative as a prohibition to treat a person as a means to achieve one’s own goals are separately considered. F. M. Kamm’s reasoning was used as a counterargument, according to which, in a practical situation of a threat to the existence of a community, treating a person as a means will actually be a necessity and the right decision. The concept of «Christian realism» was separately analyzed by R. Niebuhr, who emphasized the imperfection of human nature, called for the creation of such social and political conditions that would enable an individual to act with dignity, not to look for universal solutions and not to overly hope that a person will act correctly every time. Agreeing with F. Nietzsche’s warnings, the author emphasizes that the categorical imperative should not deprive a person of the right to choose. At the same time, the opposite intention to destroy cultural traditions and the worldview, rational and pragmatic structures of society can in some cases be no less dangerous than reckless adherence to them. And only thoughtful observance of the categorical imperative (primarily from the side of the government), the ability to think critically and respect for the human personality can guarantee the correctness of Kant’s moral and ethical prescriptions in the process of their application in the political sphere.