Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

1213 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Aristotle kant and mill on happiness

Essay #2: Immanuel Kant’s Formulations of the Categorical Imperative In his book, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant theorizes an absolute and universal guide based on the principle of reason to determine what humans morally ought to do— the categorical imperative. The categorical imperatives consists of different formulations, which simply act as different ways of defining it. Within his formulations, Kant stresses the importance of universalism, equality, and Categorical Imperatives versus Hypothetical Imperatives Before delving into the different formulations of the categorical imperative, Kant must distinguish between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Kant first defines an imperative as a command …show more content…

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional to desires: “If you do not want to go to prison, then do rob a bank.” Since hypothetical imperatives are associated with a desired end result, they are only applicable to people who to achieve that particular end result. If a person was indifferent towards being incarcerated than the former example would not apply. On the other hand, categorical imperatives are absolute and command in despite of particular desires. The categorical imperative in regards to the former example would be, “Don’t rob a bank!” Kant reaches the conclusion that if a categorical imperative is absolute and universal, and all people are commanded by morality, then morality must be based on a categorical …show more content…

He then reasons that since the will is the driving force behind moral action, it would be illogical, according to the first formulation, to assert that a person is simply a means to an end. From here, Kant develops his second formulation: “The practical imperative will thus be the following: Act so that you use humanity as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means” (46-47/281-282). The significance of the second formulation is Kant’s emphasis on equality of rational beings. The second formulation states that other people are not mere objects that can be used to achieve a certain end, rather other people’s goals should be equally significant to personal goal. However, Kant suggests that a person can be treated as a means if they are involved voluntarily. Next, Kant supports his argument by demonstrating how the four previous examples are still consistent with this formulation. First, when a person commits suicide, their own life becomes a means to escape their situation. Secondly, if a borrower fails to repay the lender, then the lender becomes a mere means for the borrower’s financial gain. Third, if we see humanity as an end in itself, then we must cultivate our talents to pursue humanity’s full

Show More
Related

  • Ethics in Nursing

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant believed consequences were irrelevant and an individual should do as they please at that very moment in time. An example would be a person went to their neighbor’s home while they were gone to turn on the heater so when they returned home it was warm. A consequence to turning on their heater is their house burned down, but according to Kant, since your intentions were good you cannot be at fault. Kant also believed each person has dignity and not to treat others as a means, to one’s personals ends (Rich, 2008). In other words, do not treat others as an instrument to achieve a goal. For example, a researcher that is risking the well-being of an individual participating in an experiment for the sake of finding a drug that may save many lives.

    Read More

  • Philippa Foot Analysis

    1518 Words  | 4 Pages

    Philippa Foot starts her piece with a description of hypothetical imperatives, presumably in order to contrast them with categorical imperatives. She uses the classic Kantian description that a hypothetical imperative is a means to an end, not an end in itself. So the “ought” of a hypothetical imperative says that we ought to do something only because we want something else. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, ought to be followed as an end in themselves and have a special rational authority — a “special dignity” (160). Foot wants to know why that could be. She wants to know what aspect of categorical imperatives gives them their special importance. In this pieces, she explores two common explanations,

    Read More

  • Kant Vs Mill on the Issue of Lying

    1763 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hill, Thomas E., "Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives." In The Blackwell guide to Kant's ethics. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. 5-9.

    Read More

  • The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant describes them by stating, “When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain- until its condition is give. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains,” (88). Like before, categorical imperatives are absolutely moral in themselves, meaning they do not rely on a person’s desires or feelings. This is compared with hypothetical imperatives, which are obligations that have an end result of your action, which in turn results in your personal desires or thoughts. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, “I need to ea... ...

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...

    Read More

  • Morality Vs Immanuel Kant

    2119 Words  | 5 Pages

    The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.

    Read More

  • Comparing Kant And Gun Control

    826 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant’s idea of the hypothetical imperative is, the idea of what someone wants and how they should achieve that want or what they need to do in order to get what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand is Kant's idea of what must be followed regardless of our own personal interests. When using both of these types of imperatives to analyse the gun control issue, the ideas must be viewed separately. A hypothetical imperative in this situation could be if a person wants to own a gun then they have to make the conscious decision to be responsible with that gun. The individual knows that in order not to be in trouble or have their freedoms taken away they have to exercise responsibility. The categorical imperative that could be applied to the situation is the idea that humans should not kill one another, this idea of not killing someone is an absolute law. The categorical imperatives determine whether something is right or something is wrong for instance killing someone is inherently wrong so Kant believes that no one should do that. This incorporates the idea of Goodwill meaning that down to everyone's fundamental core people are naturally good willed and will do the right thing. If they don't do right the right thing then they are justifying that everyone is allowed to kill and there is nothing wrong with that. Todd Calder Professor of philosophy for the University of Victoria, analyzes Kant’s ideas of imperatives and associates them with degrees of wrongness. Todd described that Kant implied, varying degrees of wrongness when he was thinking of his theories, the degree of wrongness is fitting the crime with punishment. Todd states, “Kant believes that one reason we should mete out punishment according the principle of retribution is that only then will punishment be in proportion to the inner wickedness of the criminal.”(Calder 232) This

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...

    Read More

  • Metaphysics of Morals

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Kant's Deontology

    1113 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant presents his followers with both categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Reitan). The hypothetical imperatives, often dubbed the imperfect duties, basically state, “If you want X, do Y (Reitan).” In other words, hypothetical imperatives are not obligatory of people, but encourage certain actions for certain results. Categorical imperatives say, “Do Y, no matter what you want (Reitan).” These perfect duties, as they are referred to as, are rules that we must follow without any acceptable exceptions (Degrazia, Mappes and Brand-Ballard). These perfect duties include the forbidding of killing innocent people, lying, breaking promises, becoming intoxicated, committing suicide, and masturbating (Horn). Kant ultimately believes that reason dictates what is right and wrong through the categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology, which has two formulations (Reitan). The first states, “Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time (consistently) will to be a universal law (of nature) (Reitan).” This is the philosophical equivalent of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” The second formulation, which could arguably provide a different

    Read More

  • Hypothetical Imperative Kant

    217 Words  | 1 Pages

    “two things awe me most the starry sky above me.” (immanuel kant) Kant famously made a distinction between hypothetical goods and categorical goods. He thought morality was a canses and almost mathematical sense. 2+2=4 whether you are christian buddhist or muslim and for kant the same went for moral truth. He said most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something is not really moral choice, instead, it is just contingent on our desires. For example, if you want money you have to work for it and he named that hypothetical imperative. They are commands that you should follow if you want something, but his perspective of morality is not in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but in what he called categorical imperatives. What you must to

    Read More

  • Three Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.

    Read More

  • Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

    975 Words  | 2 Pages

    If we briefly explain Kant’s categorical imperative, there are basically three principles that represent it. These are universal laws, ends as a means and the importance of intention in conducting human behaviour. Firstly, according to Kant, one’s actions should be universally valid. Universal validity means that people should think about behaviours and they need to judge whether their own behaviours or actions are morally acceptable or not. When you think of your behaviour, if you decide that everyone acts in the same way as me, then the action becomes universal and moral.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

More about Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative

Open Document