There must be a categorical imperative that Kant states “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can concomitantly will that it should become a universal law.”. Kant claims his categorical imperative is the only principle of morality (the only categorical imperative), we are entitled to expect that it determine the principles of morality uniquely. Since, if it leaves multiple incompatible sets of maxims open (we will have no basis for choosing among them), then there being no other principles of morality on which to base the choice besides categorical imperative. Assume that a person who believes s/he is acting from duty as the universal law suggested, it is possible that this person believes ‘false’ universal moral law. CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform.
In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
The further discussion on Kant’s standpoint and strategy please see Helga Varden’s discussion on the case of Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door in Kant 's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis. Precisely, Mill claims the Categorical Imperative, is actually a disguised version of the utilitarian principle, Mill says ‘‘This remarkable man… does… lay down a universal first principle as the origin and ground of moral obligation; it is this: — ‘So act, that the rule on which thou actest would admit of being adopted as a law by all rational beings’. But when he begins to deduce from this precept any of the actual duties of morality, he fails, almost grotesquely, to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility,
Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is his first crucial attempt to provide moral philosophy, and his work has endures a standout among the most powerful philosophers. Kant’s analysis can be perceived as a foundation for imminent studies by clarifying the major ideas and rules of moral rationale and demonstrating that they are subordinated to rational factors. He seeks to prove that the discovery of the principle of morality is achievable. What is more, he grants a revolutionary assertion the rightness of a choice is controlled by the nature of the principle an individual decides to follow. Therefore, Kant’s moral sense theories often are depicted as strikingly unconventional.
All we need to know for our purposes is that these writers think that Kant places the formalistic moral law at the basis of his argument, that Kant thinks that the moral conduct of each person is committed to this formalistic moral law, the universal law formula (CI1) is a principle that says to universalize all our actions. In this thesis, I mainly address issues related to the emptiness charge, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the Kantian discussions on concepts of formal are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false. This is actually a very important point for my line of argument, for adopting this claim would make it plausible not to discuss Hegel’s own philosophy in more detail. It would then, indeed, suffice to cite Hegel’s critical remarks and discuss them solely against the background of Kant’s ethics (while ignoring the wider background of Hegel’s philosophy). It has to be discussed solely on the basis of Kant’s ethics, and not already presupposing Hegel’s philosophy (which then had to be discussed critically on its own accord as well).
In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.
That principle is referred to as the Practical Imperative. The fact that Nick and Marlee used the jurors to achieve their end-game is unacceptable as it violates that principle. Finally, Kant also spoke of obeying “...rules out of a sense of duty” (Thiroux and Krasemann 55). The Duty Ethics followed by Kantians that people must do something moral out of a sense of duty rather than an inclination. Judge Harkin represented this when he reprimanded or lectured Nick on civic duty when he acted as if he wanted to dodge jury duty.
Hypothetical imperative is made of experiences, if you want x then you do y. Categorical imperative is what one ought to do, it is absolute duty. Our moral duties are categorical because they imply to us unconditionally, whether we want to or not, we know that we ought to do it. The imperative is what tells us right from wrong in what we do. As Kant is trying to show, skill has nothing to do with morality. These commands are so people can follow them, so that we know what we ought to do.
Immanuel Kant introduces the concept of the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals as the supreme principle of morality. The supreme principle of morality, posits Kant, is a moral law that is universal, unconditional, and from where we can derive all morality; hence, it must be adequate to inform all moral conduct (G 4:417). In formulating the categorical imperative, Kant develops the Formula of Humanity, which is as follows; “so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (G 4:429). The Formula of Humanity, then, is a candidate for the formulation of the supreme principle of morality. The Formula of Humanity
Hypothetical imperatives take the form of if you want X, you should do Y (Frederick 4). For example, if you want to become a doctor then you have to study. This hypothetical imperative not only tells us what to do but how to achieve our goal. Another example can be in a business setting. The owner of the company wants to keep a good reputation, in order to do so he should abstain from any violations or illegal actions that could taint his reputation.