Comparing Kant's Hypothetical And Categorical Imperative

Imperatives are commands; they tell human beings what to do. Kant differentiated these two types of imperatives: categorical and hypothetical. A categorical imperative is an absolute and universal moral obligation; it tells us what to do regardless of our desires. On the other hand, hypothetical imperatives are neither universal nor absolute; instead they take the uncertain approach of "If you want to achieve this, you must perform this." Unlike categorical imperatives, they are dependent on our desires.

One of the most common is Kant's categorical imperative. Most religious moral systems believe these imperatives. In Kant’s philosophy, a categorical imperative is an absolute requirement that does not have any exclusion, and is accepted as

Unlike the categorical imperative, it seeks a goal. For example, someone wants to lie to a murderer to save someone else’s life; saving someone’s life would be the goal, even though giving the killer false information would not be permitted under the categorical imperative especially that lying is not universalizable. The hypothetical imperative focuses on the consequences of an action, while the categorical imperative is based more on rules and commands. The difference between the two could be viewed as follows; a dying man’s last wish is to give his money to his son, but also has the option of giving the money for donation to orphans. Under the categorical imperative, the money would be given to these orphans as this would be the best solution for the action. However, this is again not universalizable, so as part of the hypothetical imperative the money would end up with his

If a person attempts to set a standard for themselves then this standard has to be also set for the rest of humanity. Once Kant has originated his categorical imperative, he applied it to some concepts. One example could be unfaithful promises. Kant applies his imperative to a person who is in a desperate need for money so he asks his friend for a loan, promising to repay it, but with no aiming of doing so. When Kant applied his imperative to this situation he discovered that it leads to some contradictions. So, if breaking promises became universal then no person would ever agree to a promise and promises would become worthless. Kant sees contradictory behavior as immoral. Through this you could argue that Kant never implied the connection between rationality and morality, but clearly explains how morality must be based on reason and not desires. Kant argued that the categorical imperative that allows one to determine what actually is moral can only be determined by reason, meaning that morals cannot be obtained by observations, but only by reason. This could be both good and bad, as to obtain considerable morals you have to reason a bit in your thinking. Kant did not believe that people should think to branch out further and see the bigger picture so they can determine their own decision. Instead, he believed there are certain universalized rules that everyone should follow