Kantian ethics is the clearest example of non-consequential theories in philosophy, and by extension, in law. Support for the theory often comes from adherents of imperative social order ideas such as utilitarianism. In Kant’s philosophy, the ideas of non-consequential ethics are most clearly demonstrated by the moral and ethical phenomenon he formulated and called the categorical imperative.
This concept, as conceived by Kant, is the formulation of how a person should act, striving to partake in genuinely moral behavior (Kant & Abbott, 2021). The imperative directly addresses the acting person, who makes specific moral choices according to the predetermined rational ways. It advises a person to strictly and urgently, most attentively, treat the maxims of their behavior, namely to the subjective rules of practical reason. According to Kant, the principles of pure practical reason have a specific non-consequential form (Kant & Abbott, 2021). They are statements containing a general definition of will, which is subject to many practical rules; this notion has particular problems in the very essence of the statement.
It should be discussed how Kant understands ethics in greater detail. Namely, morality should not be relative, bound by private interests, but absolute and universal; otherwise, it does not exist at all (Kant & Abbott, 2021). In other words, relativism is the enemy of genuine morality, the contingency of principles, and adaptation to the situation. In this aspect of Kant’s philosophy, the conflict between the fundamental, strictly necessary, universal moral law, which Kant defends, and the always determined circumstances, the actions of specific people, acquires a particularly sharp form. This conflict arises at the forefront of Kant’s non-consequential ethical position. After all, a specific person cannot live and act otherwise than focusing on circumstances, building their own subjective maxims of behavior. Perhaps they have no reason to be guided by universal morality, and in this case, the universal moral law–the categorical imperative–becomes just an idea and a chimera.