Philosophy
What is the distinction between hypothetical imperatives and categorical ones, and why is morality associated with categorical imperatives?
Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) is a critical examination of the supreme principle of morality based on a priori (reason) knowledge rather than a posteriori (empirical) truths. He argued that his duty ethics is based on pure reason using a moral rule, which defines ultimate practical moral principles. He then distinguished between hypothetical and categorical ones such that the former is about actions that “represent the practical necessity of a possible action as to something else;” whereas, the latter is about actions that “represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end” (30). In addition, morality is associated with categorical imperatives because they are “practical law,” (80), which can be considered universalizable to humankind. A detailed distinction is given below:
Hypothetical imperatives are based on human desire or inclination, that is, they are dependent on certain things and thus “only have conditional worth” (44). For instance, if you want to become a good citizen, then your likelihood of becoming one will be dependent upon your ability to pay taxes given the condition that you are employed and have earnings. It is therefore imperative for you to continue with your trade as a productive individual in contrast to an otiose individual who depends so much on other people for their welfare. The hypothetical imperative in this scenario would be: ‘If you want to become a good citizen (the hypothetical), you have to do your work well so that you can have a good earning and pay your taxes (the imperative). Thus, doing your craft satisfactorily is a manifestation of being a good citizen, but it is hypothetical since it is simply a means to something else or more, namely paying one’s dues to the government.
On the other hand, categorical imperatives are founded on human rationality alone whereby they are “not limited by any condition, and as being absolutely, although practically, necessary” (33). Hence, for Kant, there is only one categorical imperative: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst [simultaneously] will that it should become a universal law” (37). Kant’s categorical imperative can also be stated in various ways, such as: You ought not to act unless you could also will that your conduct are principled, that is, should also at the same time become universal law; Act such that you consider your conduct to become a universal law; and, so on. Because Kant claimed that the categorical imperative is objectively necessary, it emanates from the necessity of the correctness of a moral action itself without any qualification to its consequences. Thus, Kant’s Categorical Imperative is concerning duties or obligations that are in themselves unqualified, absolute, or unconditional. Examples of these duties include promise keeping, truth telling, debt repayment, tending to the indigents, etc.
In view of morality as being associated with categorical imperatives, it is because moral actions are ought to be done without duress, bad intention despite possibly good consequences, etc., but by goodwill. For instance, in the above example, keeping promises can be universalized because if everyone is faithful or has a word of honor, there is always an assurance that something is ought to be the case. Unlike false promises, if it is universalized, doubts would surely permeate society such that no one would trust his/her neighbor. Definitely, no person would like to be in such a situation. It would be a chaotic or anarchic place later on. Hence, it is for this reason that, unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives offer a priori account of ethical action (that is, by reason independent of human experience) that could be best conceived of as universalizable because they may apply with absolute necessity to all rational beings. Furthermore, Kant claimed that there is not just moral, but also logical necessity, for the “Categorical Imperative.” For him, there is an ultimate moral principle belonging to the realm of man’s rationality – the autonomous will of the man. Accordingly, Kant believes that logically necessary, practical moral laws are universal. He thus asserted that man’s action should conform to moral laws, not simply in abidance with it; otherwise, it is then merely contingent upon any individual’s subjective condition. However, it can be gleaned from the aforementioned proposition that, since Kant focuses his duty ethics not just on purely practical reason, he is also reliant on metaphysical inquiry as well.
Hence, from the foregoing statements, I agree with Kant when he stated that, “goodwill” is the only thing that can be conceived as “good” “without qualification” (9)” since it constitute the indispensability of a person or condition to be worthy of happiness. Additionally, an action of duty has moral worth not in the purpose to be attained, but by the “principle of volition” irrespective of desire (16).” Kant’s Categorical Imperative is thus related to morality because if a person knows what is right from wrong, it ought to be in accordance with his/her good intention, action and consequences for him-/herself and/or other people.
Kant’s morality can therefore be summed up as: (a) there exists universal laws of morality; (b) moral principles independently exist depending on the contexts where there is a need for moral decision making; (c) moral truths primarily founded on man’s rationality; (d) logically valid morality must be established on purely practical reason; (e) the motive of the person doing the act outweighs its consequences; (f) moral worth of any actions should be judged accordingly (motives not on consequences); and, (g) a good action, must be done for moral law’s sake and for no other goals.
Work Cited
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Ed. Allen Wood. Trans. Allen Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Print.
so what i need is an Persuasive Essay and I want to talk about why I think Euthanasia should be allowed, ((because of the right of humans who have terminal illnesses to die in dignity, also the right to end their suffer and pain, and that they don't have the life quality also it is a emotional and physical distress for the family experiences)) I don't know but these points what came to my mind, maybe you like it maybe there are some of the point needed to be change, do what ever you think is right; however, I need it to have 3 sources article or books with pg numbers and for each source we should right a paragraph long about it in order to strengthen our arguments,
, I will show you an example:
Annotated Bibliography
Batt, Ellen G. "Teachers' Perceptions Of ELL Education: Potential Solutions To Overcome The Greatest Challenges." Multicultural Education 15.3 (2008): 39-43. ERIC. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
Callins, Tandria. "Culturally Responsive Literacy Instruction." TEACHING Exceptional Children 39.2- (2006): 62-65. ERIC. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
but also we need to have Counterarguments and Supporting Arguments for each point and we should have 4 of them and we should support our arguments with an articles or books about the argument to be more persuasive.
l hope you understand what I am trying to say here
I hope you got the idea
thank you.
