Hypothetical imperative

Morals by Kant Kant states (38,) "act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature". This "categorical imperative" forms the basis of his book, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Though at times his writing is confusing Kant lays out his logic as to what a categorical imperative is. Kant divides the book into three sections. The first explains the transition from everyday moral beliefs to the philosophy of those morals. The transition

In this paper, I will compare the theories of Aristotle and Kant on the basis of ethics. I will be examining Aristotle’s theory of virtue in which his focus is “What is a Good Life” and Kant’s theory of deontological ethics in which the moral worth of an action lies in the duty upon which moral actions are engendered. To begin, Aristotle's moral theory (theory of virtue) focuses on questions about what is good? His focus is "What is the good life? What does it mean to be a good person?" (Kemerling

Question No. 1 Answer: The categorical imperative is the focal philosophical idea in the deontological moral rationality of Immanuel Kant. Kant trusted that the main thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says that the good will is not good on account of what it influences or finishes or as a result of its sufficiency to accomplish some proposed end; it is good simply because of its willing, i.e., it is good of itself. A maxim is the summed up tenet that characterizes the intentions

the proof despite having ample time to do so, Oger disregards the writing and speculates that the reason the proof was not published was because it undermined Nietzsche’s true intent. Ethical This interpretation views eternal return as an ethical imperative which asserts that: at every moment, you should act in such way that you would desire the eternal return of your action. Oger references Nietzsche writing as the source of the interpretation: “the task is to live in such a way that you must wish

fulfilled or abidance to a recognized law. Moral action is therefore determined by an action that is done for the sake of a duty, for the duty as an end in itself. It is not the intended purposes of our actions, or the conditional ends of the hypothetical imperative, that determine an action’s moral worth. It is “nothing other than the representation of the law in itself…insofar as it and not the hoped-for effect is the determining ground of the will, can constitute the preeminent good we call moral”

or not. Following this, Kant indicates that commands and imperatives are the two important factors that help the will. The imperatives are set into two different types, which are categorical and hypothetical. Between these two, he personally thinks that only categorical imperatives can be part of the laws of morality. He explains that the reason why is because categorical imperatives are what start up the self-will, hypothetical imperatives don’t. They depend highly on the

Hume and Kant offered two differing views on morality. Hume's philosophy regarding moral theory came from the belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or thoughts cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in us and our perception of the world and what we want to gain from it. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as

Introduction: Deontology is a kind of duty ethics, word deontology comes from the Greek words of duty and science. Deontology is a kind of moral ethics in which choices are based on moral values. It bases its foundation on what we ought to do, in comparison to what kind of person we are and should be as in virtue ethics. Deontologists usually oppose consequentialism because consequentialism is based on consequences and not moral principles. In this paper I would like to present the views why consequentialism

identified two types of hypothetical imperatives, ‘technical’ and ‘assertoric’. Technical imperatives are desires that may or may not be shared by others, the desire varies between individuals. Moreover, assertoric imperatives are desires that are shared by the majority of people. Consequently, assertoric imperatives are often assumed although they are not as common as often believed. Contrastingly, categorical imperatives are not founded on desires. Categorical imperatives apply in whatever situation

action on our part. Duties then lead to imperatives which are commands. There are two types of imperatives: