Kant's Categorical Imperatives

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher thought to be the greatest thinker of the eighteenth century. He based moral philosophy on the principle of reason, developing the highly influential concept of the categorical imperative which will be discussed later on. He focused on discovering moral maxims, asking “can this law apply to all rational creatures?”. Immanuel Kant was a deontologist, which means he viewed that moral value is determined by fulfilling one’s duty. Deontologists are all about moral duties people should follow for all situations. He was convinced that all other potential foundations for morality were irretrievably flawed, ie suppose we attempt to ground our moral beliefs in right and wrong, what he called inclinations. How can

He states the supreme principle of morality was the categorical imperative, or a command. There are two categories of his imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives are kind of cause and effect in a way that if you, for example, help out at a food shelter, you will be charitable. Categorical imperatives are said to be intrinsically good, meaning they are not actions that are good as a means to something else (Chaffee 465). According to the textbook, Kant classifies the categorical imperatives as follows: “the content of a moral action (thou shalt not kill), intent of an action (Love God and love your neighbor), and the character of the person imitating the action (act as a virtuous person would act)” (Chaffee 466). Kant believes we should stay logically consistent to will when practicing categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives and morality are connected because morality is something that commands oneself, leading to one not being able to opt out or claim it doesn’t belong to them. So what makes a person good? Kant states it's the motivation behind one’s actions, not the action

He states that a good life is one lived by devoting our lives to fulfilling our most sublime potential as humans in a life that is founded on virtue and reason. He believes in our soul reaching great heights, surpassing mortality with living in our highest faculties and living harmoniously with all of our abilities as humans. Another weakness is that his theory lacks focus when it comes to determining the types of actions that are morally acceptable and permitted from the ones that should be avoided. Instead, it concentrates more on the qualities an individual has to enhance or improve in order to become a good person. It is flawed in a sense that the theory can lead to self-centeredness, meaning he doesn’t expect a person to think or regard other people instead of for personal gain and interest. Lastly, the theory is misleading because it leads people to rely on luck when it comes to attaining moral maturity. This can then result to people asking why others are luckier to have achieved moral maturity while there will be those who are not lucky enough even if this is not brought about by their own