Categorical Imperative Kant

Kant is a giant of the philosophy world. The three statements of the categorical imperative were some of Kant’s most important words. btannica.com says a categorical imperative is, “a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end” (britannica.com Categorical imperative par. 1). In other words, a categorical imperative is a moral “you ought to do this” no matter the circumstances. Let’s examine the 3 versions of the categorical imperative.
The first version of the categorical imperative says, “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant par. 2.8). Here, Kant is saying that we ought to

not act on ideas that contradict logic and reason when we universalize them. It is almost saying to act so that you actions could be the legislature of universal laws.
The second version of the categorical imperative says, “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only” (Kant par. 2.28). This version sounds lot like the golden rule. It means that it is immoral to use people as “objects” to get what you want. It reminds me of the darkest period in America’s history where slave owners used slaves as “means” to the slave owner’s desired “end”. This imperative also instructs us to look out for the needs of society. This a thought similar to the thoughts of Mill.
The third version of the categorical imperative says, ”it can only command that everything be done from maxims of one's will regarded as a will which could at the same time will that it should itself give universal laws, for in that case only the practical principle and the imperative which it obeys are unconditional, since they cannot be based on any interest” Kant par. 2.40). This version is a bit more difficult to unpack. First, Kant is saying that will is individualized. However, we learn more about this version of the categorical imperative when we put it into context of the others. Kant is saying that although our will is individualized, we must still do acts that will be positive for society. We should do acts that we would want others to do.
Kant has some interesting connections to the other writers we studied. For example, Kant and Hobbes have entirely different ideas of morality. These writers differed greatly on will. The SEP says, “Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it but might not” (Johnson sec. 4 par. 1). This is saying that Kant doesn’t believe someone will follow these ideas, but they should. On the other hand, Hobbes was a bit of a psychological egoist, meaning humans have to choose self-benefitting actions. Kant is like Mill in a few ways, but especially when it come sot the universalization of our actions.