Response To Kant's Categorical Imperatives

David Bass

Penn State University

October 1, 2017

Response to Kant’s paper

If we look at the purposes for Kant’s work we see that it was to construct a moral philosophy that was absolute. His ethics were based on reason and need to be universally valid, they do not contain any empirical or contingent, so they all must be scientific in nature. Kant would argue that only thing good without qualification is a good will. His moral law is that of moral action and is determined by purpose behind the action, not by it consequences of the action. He refers to this as a categorical imperative, our actions are based by considering whether the action is positive or beneficial and do not take in consideration of the true outcome it will have.

Kant

The first one hypothetical and the second categorical. His belief is that morality must be just that a moral law that guides a person’s will through any circumstance they might have. This is considered categorical imperative by Kant, to further break this down he tells us that Categorical means as absolute without exception and Imperative refers to a command. This categorical imperative was created in a way that a person can ouly act a certain way. He states” so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Review of Kant's Paper, n.d.) This maxim is the reason for acting. His belief of universal law is “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become universal law” (Review of Kant's Paper, n.d.) So he is telling us that if we can act in a way at one point in that if everyone adopts this action as an universal law. Kant gives the example of the man taking his own live, he asks himself, would it go against his duty to take his own life, he then asks if his maxim could then become universal law of nature? This would never co-exist as everyone would be killing themselves, and humanity would cease to be. This example shows the man wanted to have the approval by the law, but be exempted for himself. A second example we see is that concerning duty to others, Kant shares of a man who needs to borrow funds, knowing he cannot repay. His maxim

He states “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 a means only…” (Review of Kant's Paper, n.d.) I think Kant is trying to show us that we should treat others as rational beings as the end itself, not as something to another end, more basic respect others and don’t use them for your good. I looked up end in itself and it refers to a person’s value with no other input, his true value, we have this value because we exist. Kant says referring to a person as a means is disrespectful for their rational nature, his principle says that “rational nature exists as an end in itself” (Review of Kant's Paper, n.d.) This would imply that the simple means, rational beings are for the most part inherently good. He also touches on Autonomy, to manipulate others for your gain and to go against what they feel is right, all persons have a certain freedom that is bound by their logical will. Kant shares “every rational being must consider itself as giving in all the maxims of its will universal laws” (Review of Kant's Paper,