The Categorical Imperative

By Immanuel Kant

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

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

Good will also means good determination. If we are determined to get what we want, then we can get it. In life, it is difficult to really get what you would like to have, but if you are determined, patient and have good motive, then you would be successful in your chosen career. According to Kant, good will can be bad because the more people strive to become rich, powerful and famous, the higher chance that we will have conflicts with other people who also want to become rich and so on.

2)    Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperative.

Hypothetical imperative means that we don’t know what it contains, but rather we know what the condition it sets before what is the contain. While, categorical imperative means that he would know what it contains, there are no conditions applied.

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.

The first formula which is the notion of a universal law is just a part of categorical imperative. The best example would be self-love. Self-love means to shorten our lives because of the pains and undertakings in our lives. Then we can say is this morally wrong or morally right. The answer would be morally wrong since it cannot act as universal law. A law can be universal law if it applies to all the people. Who is on the right mind to commit suicide if they are happy and even had misfortunes. Thus, universal laws are morally correct. Kant uses the rule in order to let the people know their duties in their self and also others.

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

Persons are said to be not subjected to end since their existence of their wellbeing has value for us. Thus, we can call them as objective ends which means things whose existence in itself an end and because of their existence, they would serve as means.

DISCUSSION QUESTION:

1)    Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your answer.

I think these two versions of the categorical imperative are just different expressions of one basic rule. I think they have similar views and that is we should base our action the same treatment with everyone else by not simply acting as means. The same treatment that I used here is the first formulation about universal law. While, acting simply the means is the second formulation about means and ends

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 agree with Kant’s claim that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth since everyone should consider their duty as an individual. The example that the book gave is the retailer who equally charged all his customer the real same price which I can say she is doing his duty as a retailer. She has the duty to act fairly in all his customers. Thus, I can say that she has the moral worth.

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

Certainly yes, I think that commentators have good arguments about categorical imperative. I also think that the first formula can justify if the action of one’s person is morally correct or wrong. It can be a good arguments because after reading the portion of the first formula, the idea that pops out in my head is “is the self-love can be justify as morally wrong because it does not apply as universal law?” But nonetheless, I think it has a good criticism.