CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE BY IMMANUEL KANT

Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel

Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all
agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end.
“Thou shalt not steal,” for example, is categorical as distinct from the hypothetical
imperatives associated with desire, such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.”
For Kant there was only one such categorical imperative, which he formulated in various
ways. “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law” is a purely formal or logical statement and expresses the
condition of the rationality of conduct rather than that of its morality, which is expressed in
another Kantian formula: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in
another, always as an end, and never as only a means.”

The Categorical Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral actions and to
make moral judgments. It is not a command to perform specific actions -- it does not say, "follow the
10 commandments", or "respect your elders". It is essentially "empty" -- it is simply formal procedure
by which to evaluate any action about which might be morally relevant.

Since by nature (according to Kant) the moral law is universal and impartial and rational, the
categorical is a way of formulating the criteria by which any action can pass the test of universality,
impartiality, and rationality. That is its only function.

It has several forms or expressions and you need to know the first two . Kant believes that these two
forms of the CI are, ultimately, equivalent, and that what one forbids the other forbids also.

I suppose you might say that they are two ways of looking at the same "moral reality." How are these
two forms related? How are they equivalent? Well, they are equivalent because that which makes
human beings intrinsically valuable (this is the focus of the second expression of the CI) is reason and
freedom, and it is precisely the demands of rationality (which is the precondition of freedom) that
provide the criteria for evaluating moral actions in the first expression of the CI.

In other words, it is because other people have (universal) reason and freedom that you should never
treat them as merely means to your own ends, and it is that rationality which provides the criterion for
evaluation found in the first expression of the CI.

Both forms of the CI are intended to be expressions of the common, ordinary moral sense that we
(most of us, anyway) have that there are some actions that are simply wrong.

What is the relationship between the two forms of the Categorical Imperative?

An imperative is a command. "Close the door!" "Brush your teeth!" "Study hard!" "Don't forget to
button your shirt." According to Kant, however, these commands are abbreviations.

 "Close the door, so that your father can hear the game."
 "Brush your teeth, so you don't get cavities."
 "Study hard, so you can get a good job, and give your poor parents some peace."
 "Don't forget to button your shirt, so your date doesn't think you're an idiot."
They are "hypothetical imperatives" -- Kant means that the commands depend upon the goals to be
fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend upon personal situations, particular human goals and
desires and dispositions. Hypothetical imperatives are commands that apply only in particular
circumstances, for particular people who happen to have these desires, these goals.

The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal because all people, in virtue of being
rational, would act in precisely the same way, and impartial because their actions are not guided by
their own biases, but because they respect the dignity and autonomy of every human being and do
not put their own personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.

Notice that the above is NOT a description of how everybody does behave -- as an ethical theory, it is
concerned to describe how people ought to behave.

Kant is not condemning hypothetical imperatives. In fact, he agrees that these are the sorts of
imperatives that we live by are hypothetical in nature. But they are not moral. (They are not immoral --
they are non-moral.)

What is the function of reason?

Reason has a lot of functions. It has a theoretical function (science, for example) and a practical
function. We are interested in the practical function -- practical in the sense that reason determines
(along with emotions and desires) human behavior and choice. But the practical function can be
understood to have two parts -- as a "means-ends" function, and as the moral function. Kant, as it
should be clear to you by now, does not equate moral reason with the calculative reason of the
utilitarians or the egoists. But he does not condemn this side of practical reason, either. It has its
proper place in human life, and it is an exceedingly important place. But calculation of means and
ends must be supported with a different type of reasoning -- moral reasoning.

And how does this side of human reasoning work? What is it's nature?

Human reason is principally constituted by the search for universality and necessity. This conception
of reason shows Kant to be deeply and profoundly influenced by the Enlightenment, and the
Enlightenment's pursuit of natural science. For Kant, this search for "natural laws" in science is the
crucial aspect, the constitutive element of rationality per se. And just as the discovery of universal
laws is absolutely central to natural science, so is the search for universal laws central to human
morality. It is this aspect of reason which is at the heart of the demand for impartiality and justice.
When a Judge make his/her decision in applying the law, we hope and trust that s/he is not driven by
his or her feelings, or passions, or biases, or ambitions. No, we want the Judge to be rational -- to put
aside those personal attachments which might influence his or her ability to ignore such things as the
color of your skin, or the shape of your body, or the spelling of your name, or the patterns of your
clothing, or the length of your hair. What matters is the law. What matters is the Judge's unbiased
reason.

So it is in ethics as it is in law. The Categorical Imperative is devised by Kant to provide a formulation

by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right, the rational thing to do -- that  is our
duty.

Kant’s links

http://comp.uark.edu/~rlee/semiau96/kantlink.html

For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will.  Those acts are morally
praiseworthy that are done out of a sense of duty rather than for the consequences that are expected,
particularly the consequences to self.  The only thing GOOD about the act is the WILL, the GOOD
WILL.  That will is to do our DUTY.  What is our duty?  It is our duty to act in such a manner that we
would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people.
Kant expressed this as the Categorical Imperative. 

Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were
a universal law. 

For Kant the GOOD involves the Principle of Universalizability!  

Kant argues that there can be four formulations of this principle:

The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become
through your will a universal law of nature."

The Formula of the End Itself: "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."

The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making
universal law through its maxims."

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making
member of a kingdom of ends." 

Never treat a person as a means to an end.

Persons are always ends in themselves.  We must never use or exploit anyone for whatever purpose. 

Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason wanted to find a basis for ethics that would be based on
reason and not on a faith in a god or in some cold calculation of utility that might permit people to be
used for the benefit of the majority.  Kant thought carefully about what it is that all humans would find
reasonable as a guide for human conduct.  People think it wrong to kill, lie, steal, and break
promises.  Why is this so.  Kant arrives at the idea that humans think these acts wrong because they
cannot will that others would do these things because it would mean the end of civilized life, perhaps
even the life of the actor contemplating the right way to behave.  One can not will that people lie all
the time for that would mean the end to human communications if we could not trust what was said to
be true most, if not all, of the time.  Kant thought that there would be perfect and imperfect duties. 

Perfect Duty is that which we are all obliged to do all of the time. 

e.g., no killing, no physically harming others, no lies, no theft, no breaking promises 

Imperfect Duties are those which we should do as often as possible but can not be expected to do
always.         e.g., be charitable, loving,