Anyone or anything that is rational possesses will, whether it is a human being or a field mouse.

According to Kant, imperatives are principles determining what individuals should do. These imperatives may be divided as those which are categorical, and those which are hypothetical; the former expresses imperatives that are those

morality permits each of us a sphere in which to pursue our own plans and goals.

Question 2: Morality tells us what we ought to do, and imposes upon us duties which it would be wrong not to fulfill. Yet Kant claims, in Chapter Two of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, that autonomy—the ability

On the other hand, there are few to none examples of a Categorical Imperative, because as Kant would believe, they have to be actions that are good in themselves completely. To arrive at the Categorical Imperative, Kant starts off by explaining that an action is good without qualification if done from duty and not primarily from inclination, or ulterior motives. This, in a more simplified manner, means an action is good if it was the right thing to do and a person did it for the sake of duty and not because of anything else, like instincts or feelings. Kant believes there are very few people in this world that can actually live up to the standard of duty. From this point, Kant states that moral worth is determined by the rule or principle by which an action has been decided, not in the purpose to be attained by it. This statement goes back to the difference of means versus ends; is a person’s action based on the mean or is it based on ends? After Kant arrives at this, he then affirms that duty is the reverence for the law. The difference between reason and will is established at this point. Reason, or thought, can be described as theoretical or pure reason, or it can be described as practical reason. Kant describes theoretical reason as determining a given concept, but practical reason is idea of making the concept actual. Will, on the other side, can be broken down to either the “holy will” or empirically mixed

Kantian Ethics states that all morality can be reduced to respecting autonomy. This theory has faced criticisms as well as support. Its most plausible idea is that autonomous agents are capable of making their own decisions and even if their choices may not be the best for them, these choices should be respected. However, criticisms of this theory include concerns such as 1) respecting autonomy is not equivalent to respecting the autonomous agent, 2) the theory does not concern (or concerns very little) with non-autonomous agents such as children and non-human animals, 3) it is implausible that respecting autonomy is the only factor determining morality, and 4) respecting others’ autonomy does not follow from respecting one’s own autonomy.

Kant’s third and final formulation of categorical imperative “Formula of Autonomy” states that one must treat the idea of the will of every rational being, as a universal law. This means we should only act as maxims that are corresponding with a possible end. We should so act that we think of ourselves as a member in the universal realms of ends. We are required according to this formulation

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

If morality is so significant that one could justify breaking the law we must consider the importance of being moral in the first

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher who developed his ethical theory The Moral Law and Autonomy of the Will. In his theory Kant discussed his imperative to “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” He defined an imperative or command in which he states one should use the thought of what one ought to do rather than what one wants to do. In this good will is equally subjective to objective laws or laws of the good. Kant believed that one shouldn’t use others as a means to an end and that every action we take should reflect a universal or absolute moral principle in which we generalize if our actions are absolutely good or evil.

For a Kantian moralist, moral maturity cannot be achieved without the acceptance of the need for autonomy as defined above. Acceptance of heteronomous theories which, for example, require obedience to the imperatives or commands of state, society or religious faith, necessarily place individuals in positions of passivity, commanded or impelled to behave in ways which they cannot and do not initiate. If, on the other hand, individuals autonomously recognize and make their own a particular moral value, then, when they act in obedience to it, they are doing so with a deep sense of their own freedom to decide upon the course of their own actions. To act in this way, as Kant himself would have argued should be the case, is to act in such a manner as to make use of the rational faculties common to all human beings for the purpose of discovering the moral law which is also commonly and universally applicable.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each

Morality is defined as a recognition or belief that explains why some behaviors are bad or good. In simple words, morality refers to values relating to the distinction between wrong and right or good and bad. Few morals are easily accepted and are only questioned by some fringes of society who might disagree with such morals. These individuals on the fringes can be bad or good. The ones who reject socially accepted moral does not necessarily mean that they are good persons. Thus, one can say that each individual has morals that are different from each other (Joseph).

His prolegomena is not the only work where Kant addresses free will. In his work, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant suggests that morality is based on the concept of freedom. He states, “A rational being must always regard himself as law-giving in a realm of ends that is possibly only through the freedom of the will, and this holds whether he belongs to the realm as a member or as sovereign” (Groundwork). Therefore mankind must

In fact, this final formula for the categorical imperative brings us back to the original concept of the will itself as that which is good without qualification. At this point in the argument, Kant can provide a more technical statement of its intrinsic moral value by distinguishing between autonomy and heteronomy of the will.