Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative

Quote:

            “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. Intelligence, wit, judgement, and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or courage, resolution, and constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects; but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good which has to make use of these gifts of nature, and which for this reason has the term “character” applied to its peculiar quality.”

What I Expect To Learn:

            As the title implies, I expect to learn the categorical imperative as discussed by Immanuel Kant. Aside from that, I also expect to learn the hypothetical imperative and its difference from categorical imperative.

Chapter Review:

            Seriously speaking, this is by far the part or discussion that I did not understand that much. Actually, I barely understood Immanuel Kant’s point at all. Although, I did understand his concept of good will. It is not goo because of what it affects and accomplishes instead it is good because it is good by nature. As far as I understand, this means that good will is the innate and natural goodness that one has in him.

            While reading his discussion, he said that actions that are done not because of duty have no moral value. I disagree with this very much because for me, no matter what happens, whatever we do, it has a moral value. All our actions even if it is not our duty or obligation to do it have moral values and here I think I can enter the concept of volunteerism because actions done which are not because of our duties are actions which we do voluntarily and willingly.

What I Learned:

            I learned the concept of good will. I also learned the motive of duty.

Integrative Questions:

1. Who is Immanuel Kant?
2. What is the categorical imperative?
3. What is hypothetical imperative?
4. What is the motive of duty?
5. What is the formula of the end in itself?

Review Questions

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

According to Kant, a good will is not good because of what it affects and accomplishes instead it is good will because of its fitness for attaining some proposed end. It is good through its willing alone that is good in itself.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Kant said that categorical imperative states that one must act only according to that truism or maxim whereby he can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. On the other hand, hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance. For instance, if you are hungry, you have to eat something to fill your stomach.

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.

As far as I understood what Kant said, he did not state any specific explanation to this. Actually, I did not understand this quite well.

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

The second version of the categorical imperative states: “Act so as to use humanity, whether in your own person or in others, always as an end, and never merely as a means but always at the same time as an ends.”

I really do not understand this quite well although, the first thing that came to my mind which I would assume is the meaning of this is that we are the judge of ourselves. We are the ones who control our life and we are the ones who name what is right and what is wrong for us.

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 honestly think that the two versions of categorical imperative are much alike because of the fact that both somehow say that we control our own life and we are our own judge.

2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples.

I beg to disagree with Kant on these terms. I disagree with him because I believe that there are actions which we do that can be considered to have great moral worth even though it is not our duty. For instance, if on my way home, I see a boy selling two more flowers, I can buy the remaining flowers so that the boy can go home already. It is not my duty to buy those flowers but due to my desire or want for the boy to get home early, I decide to buy the flowers.

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

Sadly, I cannot answer this straight because I do not really understand the deeper sense of the categorical imperative.

||Go Home||Read Next||Read Previous||