What is a "categorical imperative"?

Any statement of moral obligation which I make the principle of my action (my
"maxim" in Kant's vocabulary), in the context of a specific situation, constitutes an
"imperative." I might, in such a situation, choose to act on a statement of the form, "If
I desire some specific end (e.g. happiness, maximum pleasure, power, etc.), then
I ought to do such and such an action." In doing so I would be acting on what Kant
calls "a hypothetical imperative." However, Kant has already ruled out ends as the
grounds for moral obligation; thus hypothetical imperatives cannot serve as the basis
for determining my moral duty. However, if I act on a principle which has the form,
"In circumstances of such and such a character, I ought to do this particular act,
(quite apart from consequences)," then I am acting on what Kant calls a
"categorical imperative."

However when Kant talks about "The Categorical Imperative, he does not mean
simplyhis claim that the principle of our action cannot be a hypothetical imperative.
Instead, the phrase, "The Categorical Imperative" refers to the principle that all
principles of our action (maxims) could consistently become universal laws.
The Categorical Imperative is a principle about principles, or a "second order"
principle. "First order" principles would be the specific moral principles which
determine one's ethical obligation, such as, for example the Ten Commandments;
what The Categorical Imperative determines is the form of these first order principles.
They must have the "form" that can be consistently "universalized," i.e. held to apply
as universal moral laws for all rational agents. Kant holds that this is all reason can
deduce. Exactly which specific moral principles are those which can consistently be
universalized cannot be determined by reasoning a priori, but only empirically, by
experience. Kant's "metaphysics of morals" thus makes no claim to
deduce what our specific moral duties are. All Kant claims to deduce is
the form which any such principles must have. It is thus unfair to criticize Kant's
ethics as "sterile" or "empty" because it does not tell us specifically what our duties
are; he never intended to provide a system of morality, but instead the philosophical
ground for why a moral principle has the form it does.

What else does Kant claim we can deduce from the concept of a rational being as
such?

Kant claims that there is but one Categorical Imperative, what is normally called
"The Categorical Imperative." But he also claims that he can deduce three different
formulations of the one principle. We have already seen the first of these, and how
Kant arrived at it. The route to the other two formulations is too obscure to be
considered in these notes. But it is significant to an appreciation of Kant's whole
ethical position to know what these are.

The second is as follows: "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or
that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means merely." In other
words you must always treat every rational being including yourself as
an end and never as a means to some further end. This formulation of the categorical
Imperative reflects the typical Enlightenment outlook (which may
seem today commonplace, but was then a vigorous new idea) that each human person
is of value in and for him/herself. To "use" aother person as a means for the
furtherance of one's own ends is to reduce that person to a thing, to deny him/her
status as a rational being. The Categorical Imperative, then, is also the absolute
injunction never to act in such a way.

The third formulation of The Categorical Imperative states that you must act in
accordance with the principle that "the laws to which you are subject are those of your
own giving, although at the same time they are universal." The moral agent is one
who recognizes the source for the moral obligation under which he/she lives to be
him/herself. For the physical world "natural" law prevails; this world is determined by
that natural law to behave in the way it does. In contrast, the human will as the will of
a moral agent, a rational being, is a will which is also determined by law, but it is a
law which that rational agent freely chooses to adopt and impose on him/herself. The
stone does not choose to obey the law of gravity, but the moral agent freely chooses in
full awareness to adopt that moral principle which governs his/her life. The value or
"dignity" of a moral being lies in the fact that he/she lives by a law which he/she
freely "legislates" on his/her own life. Each member of a community of such moral
agents would "legislate" on him/herself the same law, for all would be universalizable.
Thus we would have what Kant calls a "kingdom" of individual persons each obeying
the same moral law which each had freely chosen to impose on him/herself,
recognizing his/her own dignity as a free rational self-legislating being. Kant refers to
this ideal moral community as "a kingdom of ends." It remains one of the most exalted
conceptual ideals which we still today treasure from our Enlightenment heritage.

Kant insists only categorical imperative can qualify as an

imperative of morality. When reason unleashed from passions’
bondage and commanded us categorically, it becomes “pure
practical reason.”

An action whether categorical or hypothetical, can be evaluated by

these following two fundamental rules:

(1) Act only that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law. By “become a universal law”,
Kant intend to say that if you choose an action, whoever the
person will also choose that way. It will not contradict if you
universalize it.

(2) Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as
means, but always at the same time as an end.

Since the moral law cannot be based on any particular interests,

purposes, or ends because then it would be only relative, it must
be based on absolute value as an end in itself.

If someone asks what could possibly have an absolute value in

itself, Kant will answer: “humanity”.

A few months ago, Marvel released his box office movie

entitled Avenger: Infinity War to celebrated ten years of Marvel
Cinematic Universe (MCU).

The story begins as Thanos–Avenger’s villain, collect the infinity

stone which spread over all galaxies.

Unfortunately, one of Avenger member named Vision has the

stone in his head. The only chance to stop him from getting that
mind stone is to destroy it. “Eliminating the stone is the only way
to be certain Thanos cannot get it” He said.

But it is too risk. As the mind stone detached from Vision’s head,
his life would be ended.

Debate ensued. Vision argues it will be right to gives his own life
voluntarily for the collective happiness. “One life cannot prevent to
fight Thanos,” thus, his sacrifice will be useful for the sake of
human beings. Yet, Captain America rejects. He said, “We will not
sacrifice one’s life for others’ “.

Captain America’s dialogues, inadvertently, demonstrates what

Kant means by the goal of morality. All of human beings are
worthy of respect, regardless of who they are or where they live.

Human beings are not the instrument of morality but must be the
goal of morality itself. In this point, Kant’s idea of morality
launched devastating critique against utilitarianism which says
“The highest principle of morality is to maximizing happiness”.

That’s why the goal of Kant’s idea of morality is not happiness,

instead humanity.

What is the categorical imperative? What is the supreme principle of morality? What
does it command of us?
THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
(1) The Formula of Universal Law
Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that is should become a
universal law. "the maxim", he means a rule that explains the reason for what you are
doing, a principle. For example, promise keeping.
And the test, the way we can determine that the false promise is at odds with the
categorical imperative, is try to universalize it, universalize the maxim upon which you
are about to act. If the maxim universalized would undermine itself, then it's not
categorical.

(2) The Formula of Humanity as End

We can't base the categorical imperative on any particular interests, purposes, or ends,
because then it would be only relative to the person whose ends they were. But
suppose, however, there were something whose existence has in itself an absolute
value.... an end in itself.... then in it, and in it alone, would there be the ground of a
possible categorical imperative.
"I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists as an end in himself, not
merely as a means for arbitrary used by this or that will." -- Kant

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time, as an end.

Respect is respect for humanity which is universal, for a rational capacity which is
universal, and that's why violating it, in my own case, is as objectionable as violating it in
the case of any other.