Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Name of the Book: Contemporary Moral Problems

Library Reference: N/A

Amazon Link:

   

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=

contemporary+moral+problems&x=0&y=0

 

Quote:

 

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is  should become a universal law”

 

Learning Expectations:

 

1.       To know what is categorical imperative is all about?

2.       To know what are the two version of the formulation of categorical imperative

3.       To know Kant’s view about good will

4.       To know what is the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

5.       To know the relation of the two despite of it’s differences.

 

Review:

 

            Kant stated that It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill. For without the principles of good things may become exceedingly bad; and the very coolness of scoundrel makes them not merely more dangerous but also more immediately more abominable in our eyes than we should have taken them to be without.; A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness of attaining some purposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself.

 Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical.

Hypothetical imperatives tell you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal: “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job”; “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”.

Hypothetical imperatives only apply to people who want to achieve the goal to which they refer. If I don’t care about having enough money for a new phone, then “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason to get a job. If I don’t mind going to prison, then “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason not to steal cars.

Morality, according to Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we want to achieve a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Moral behavior isn’t about staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives.

Categorical imperatives, unlike hypothetical imperatives, tell us what to do irrespective of our desires. Morality doesn’t say “If you want to stay out of prison, then don’t steal cars”; it says “Don’t steal cars!” We ought not to steal cars whether we want to stay out of prison or not.

According to Kant he concludes that a “moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person doing the moral deliberation. One could not morally command others by saying "It is wrong for you to murder, but it is not wrong for me to murder" because that would be a hypothetical imperative: Effectively saying "If I am person A, murder is right; If I am person B, murder is wrong". Therefore, a moral commandment must have universality”

The second version stated that “all rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. Most ends are of a subjective kind, because they need only be pursued if they are in line with some particular hypothetical imperative that a person may choose to adopt. For an end to be objective, it would be categorically necessary that we pursue it. The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral act”

 

 

Learning’s/Insights:

 

·         The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, as well as modern deontological ethics.

·         A hypothetical imperative, originally introduced in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant, is a commandment of reason that applies only conditionally: if A, then B, where A is a condition or goal, and B is an action

·         A good will is good in itself, not just for what it produces. A will is good if it acts from duty (and other moral motives), and not just in conformity with duty. A grocer who gives correct change from a sense of fairness (and not from fear of getting caught) has a good will.

                                                                                                   

Integrative Questions:

 

1.       What is categorical imperative?

2.       What is hypothetical imperative?

3.       What is Good will according to Kant?

4.       What is the first formulation state about categorical imperatives?

5.       What is the second formulation states about categorical imperative?

 

Review Questions:

 

1. Explain Kant’s account of the good will.

 

Kant stated that It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world or even out if it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except goodwill. For without the principles of good things may become exceedingly bad; and the very coolness of scoundrel makes them not merely more dangerous but also more immediately more abominable in our eyes than we should have taken them to be without.; A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes because of its fitness of attaining some purposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself.

 

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

 

Imperatives are instructions; they tell us what to do. Kant distinguished between two types of imperative: hypothetical and categorical.

Hypothetical imperatives tell you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal: “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job”; “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”.

Hypothetical imperatives only apply to people who want to achieve the goal to which they refer. If I don’t care about having enough money for a new phone, then “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason to get a job. If I don’t mind going to prison, then “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars” doesn’t apply to me; it gives me no reason not to steal cars.

Morality, according to Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we want to achieve a particular goal, e.g. staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Moral behavior isn’t about staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives.

Categorical imperatives, unlike hypothetical imperatives, tell us what to do irrespective of our desires. Morality doesn’t say “If you want to stay out of prison, then don’t steal cars”; it says “Don’t steal cars!” We ought not to steal cars whether we want to stay out of prison or not.

 

Reference: http://www.moralphilosophy.info/imperatives.html

 

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others.

 

 According to Kant he concludes that a “moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person doing the moral deliberation. One could not morally command others by saying "It is wrong for you to murder, but it is not wrong for me to murder" because that would be a hypothetical imperative: Effectively saying "If I am person A, murder is right; If I am person B, murder is wrong". Therefore, a moral commandment must have universality”

Reference: http://www.experiencefestival.com/categorical_imperative_-_the_first_formulation

 

4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it.

 

The second version stated that “all rational action must set before itself not only a principle, but also an end. Most ends are of a subjective kind, because they need only be pursued if they are in line with some particular hypothetical imperative that a person may choose to adopt. For an end to be objective, it would be categorically necessary that we pursue it. The free will is the source of all rational action. But to treat it as a subjective end is to deny the possibility of freedom in general. Because the autonomous will is the one and only source of moral act”

 

Reference: http://www.experiencefestival.com/categorical_imperative_-_the_first_formulation

 

Discussion Questions:

 

1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view.

 

I know that the two version are different from one another, and I think I don’t have the knowledge and edge to answer if the two version is different because I don’t really understand still the points of the two version even if I read the chapter already several times.

 

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral truth. Do you agree or not?

 

No I don’t agree. Because even if the action is not yet done we cannot say that motive of duty has no moral truth already we need to weight and consider things first.

 

3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

 

For me it’s a yes because I do believe that categorical imperatives do have points and basis about non moral and immoral actions, and so it will serves as an eye opener for to who are criticizing about the different act of an individual.