Kant's Autonomy Of Will

The autonomy of will
Kant had suggested a straight and demanding definition on what freedom is. Acting freely according our desire, our appetite is not freedom in a Kantian point of view. As mentioned above, Kant deny Bentham’s claim on pain and pleasure are our sovereign master since human had a rational capacity that distanced us and physical creatures that act merely according their appetites. This is what Kant called autonomy. Being autonomous, human are capable to act and choose freely according to the law we give ourselves. If we act for the sake of pleasure of happiness and avoid pain and suffering, as utilitarian assumed, we are not acting freely, we simply act as the slaves of our desires. Kant suggested that to act freely is to choose the end itself for its own sake but not choosing the means to a given ends. This capacity to act autonomously had given our life dignity. The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy, which act according to the inclination that was not chosen by the person himself. When

There are hypothetical and categorical imperative in this context. According to Kant, ‘if the action were good merely as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is represented as good in itself, hence necessary, as the principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason, then it is categorical’ (Kant, 1964: 414). In another word, hypothetical imperative commands according to instrumental reason, for example I am afraid word will spread and affect my reputation so I choose not to cut the pizza guy for my patients, my choice is a means to achieve my goal, while categorical imperative act without any further goal or purpose and regardless the consequences. Kant had offered three formulation of categorical imperative, the formula of universal law, the formula of Humanity as End in itself and the formula of