At best, Kant’s categorical imperatives are based on a logic that does have internal validity only in a subjective sense and thus his attempt to generate a universal law based on a maxim is not evident in an objective sense. Acting on maxims or refusing to is subjective according to the values of the individual assuming they are logical. What is considered psychotic about acting on certain maxims is based on third-party observation and assessment. The initial party deems him or herself as rational and sees no conflict in acting upon a maxim and assuming it establishes a universal law. Two psychotic maxims that Kant’s categorical imperative does forbid are claiming to be a good Christian yet being comfortable knowing one will sin and claiming to be a patriotic American and yet feeling certain members of society are not “American” and thus being comfortable with prejudices against them.
A Good Christian
The psychotic nature of claiming to be a good Christian is to assume one can be sinless when in fact in thought alone, thinking about sinning is a form of sin. Therefore, one would have to be without …show more content…
Yet, patriotism is about freedom of expression and acceptance. However, when certain freedoms one culture presents as its values conflict with another, each culture feels the other is un-American, an enemy of America and thus prejudice to some extent is justified; however, the American ideology of patriotism idealistic and does not allow for actual diversity to be embraced but in fact ends in conflict that is continuous with agreement. Therefore, to be a bigot is just as American as being a liberal; however the liberal and bigot both refer to the same values and either accept or refute them according to their own biases against each other. Both see each other as un-American. This conflicts with the sense of American patriotism accepting all Americans, and thus is forbidden as a maxim to act