Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The 3 formulations of the categorical imperative
Kant imperative categorical theory
Immanuel kant enlightenment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The 3 formulations of the categorical imperative
Can suicide be justified as morally correct? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant answers in, “The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Kant discusses many questions with arguable answers, which explains why he is one of the most controversial philosophers still today. Throughout Kant’s work, multiple ideas are considered, but the Categorical Imperative is one of the most prevalent. Though this concept is extremely dense, the Categorical Imperative is the law of freedom that grounds pure ethics of the metaphysics of ethics. Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples.
According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on. Kant describes them by stating, “When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain- until its condition is give. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains,” (88). Like before, categorical imperatives are absolutely moral in themselves, meaning they do not rely on a person’s desires or feelings. This is compared with hypothetical imperatives, which are obligations that have an end result of your action, which in turn results in your personal desires or thoughts. An example of a hypothetical imperative is, “I need to ea...
... middle of paper ...
...l if it means he could live, using the man he is stealing from as a means. The man he would be stealing from would be treated as a means, instead of as an end. This contradicts the Formula of the End in Itself, which states that every human should treat oneself and others never as a means, but always as an end. The right thing to do in this case would be to not steal from the other man. These two examples can demonstrate how each person can use the two formulations of the Categorical Imperative to decide whether a maxim is moral or not.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Works Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
Philippa Foot starts her piece with a description of hypothetical imperatives, presumably in order to contrast them with categorical imperatives. She uses the classic Kantian description that a hypothetical imperative is a means to an end, not an end in itself. So the “ought” of a hypothetical imperative says that we ought to do something only because we want something else. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, ought to be followed as an end in themselves and have a special rational authority — a “special dignity” (160). Foot wants to know why that could be. She wants to know what aspect of categorical imperatives gives them their special importance. In this pieces, she explores two common explanations,
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Immanuel Kant’s argument for the claim that suicide is immoral can be found in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals on page 73-74 in Practical Philosophy. The claim which Kant makes is when he starts to explain the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative, gives us the idea that Human will is caused by imperatives. There are two kinds of imperatives: 1. Hypothetical 2. Categorical. These two kinds of imperatives are important to us knowing what is our will and duty
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Central to Kant’s postulate is that an agent who ends his own life treats himself merely as a means to fleeing his misfortunes. This action, in Kant’s view, contradicts the second variant of the categorical imperative, which stipulates that human beings are ends in themselves because a human being differs from a mere “thing” (4:429.18). In the second illustration, here, Kant argues against using people merely as a means. He uses the example of making false promises to a lender, thus using him as an instrumental object to achieve a further end. This, Kant remarks, is contradictory to the principle of treating humanity as an end in itself. Kant’s main argument here is that rational beings ought to be respected. Third, (example 3) Kant explicates that, as rational beings, our capacities for greater perfection” are a distinctive part of us and it is the purpose of “nature with regard to humanity in our subject”. Consequently, duty to one’s self demands that we nurture our talents. Humanity, argues Kant, will still be sustained if we fail to develop our given talents; however this will not promote its flourishing. Fourth, on the last illustration, Kant claims that our end pursuit, as rational beings, is happiness – we all naturally wish to be happy. Consequently, as a duty to others, we are to promote the happiness of other rational
Kant, Immanuel. “Selections from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.” Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (1993): 104-112. Blackboard. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
25 Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Translated James W. Ellington, 3rd ed. (Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1993), 9.
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Paton, H. J. (1964). Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysic of MOrals. new York: Harper & Row.