Categorical Imperative Essay

The last step in making a moral decision is simply making the decision. How one arranges the issues and arrives at this decision depends on one's particular set of values and cultural perspectives, but regardless the values and cultural perspectives of the decision maker, the rights and duties remain the same for any situation. One must learn to look for and identify the appropriate deontological factors. Once these factors are identified, one may use his/her own values in order to determine which factors are the most important. By applying these unique values, one is able to develop the final decision.

Hypothetical imperative is the "practical necessity of some possible action as a means to achieving something else that one does or might want" as defined in page 19 of Bennett’s translation, whereas categorical is an action that is "objectively necessary in itself without regard to any other end" (Bennett, 19). When Kant says "We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in fact we can never, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions," in page 19, he is suggesting that even though human beings think that there only exists principled and virtuous thoughts in ourselves, there lies greater motivations and reasons behind our actions.

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

“If the action would be good solely as a means to something else it is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical”. Kant

Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as an action that addresses what "should" or "ought" to be done. He believed that the necessity of performing a certain action was based on other desires. This particular action would only be important if it was beneficial for another reason. It is prudent that a man feel the responsibility to achieve his own wants. However, Kant speaks of a second group of imperatives known as "categorical imperatives."

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives”, Philippa Foot argues against Immanuel Kant, that morality exists in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives alone serve as moral commands, and it would be impossible for a moral system to be based on hypothetical imperatives because such imperatives serve as means to ends and result from maxims that cannot be universalized into perfect duties. Despite this, Foot holds that acting on many hypothetical imperatives can be morally praiseworthy and can even serve as the basis of moral judgments. Although I agree with Foot that hypothetical imperatives can have moral worth, in this paper, I will argue that a morality based on the purposes that hypothetical imperatives are directed toward appears to be circular. To do this, I will explain Foot’s theory of how morality is known and binds. Then, I will argue that this theory is insufficient to explain the moral purpose that hypothetical imperatives must be directed toward, thus begging the question of what is the moral basis of the purpose directed toward in the hypothetical imperative.

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives” by Phillipa Foot the author first starts off the article by explaining that moral judgements are either categorical imperatives or hypothetical imperatives. The author then begins her argument that moral judgements are in fact hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives by tearing down the idea that moral judgments can be categorical imperatives. The author makes the argument against categorical imperatives by making a comparison between “should” and “ought” (308). The author states the idea that coercion cannot be the reason for following moral judgments. I have the inclination to agree with the author because the arguments made by Kant’s previous paper are unclear and

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

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

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

Determining Moral Worth of an Action: Formulate a Maxim-for-Action. /Is it the right thing to do and is your motivation right? /If it is coming from good will, you should do it. /If it does not come from good will, but it is consistent with it, the action is good but you are not doing it for the right reasons, so your act should not be

In his work, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant talks about three formulations of imperative. The first formulation of imperative is “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Kant believes that our actions should be the same in all situations, regardless of the outcome. Some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Kant believes that emotions and consequences should not play a role in moral action. We are morally obligated or have a duty

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.