Comparison Of Hypothetical And Categorical Imperatives

1250 Words5 Pages

Kant’s moral theory of deontology is the study of duty. Deontology focuses on the intentions of the actions and not on the consequences that may follow, the opposite of utilitarianism. According to the theory of deontology, we are obligated to follow the principles and rules regardless of the outcomes. My goal in this paper is to explain the theory of deontology, which has two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical that are used when deciding upon the act to be taken; also would like to identify objections against the theory of deontology. 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. In the end, the owner will be seen as honest and trustworthy, this will be good for business. Hypothetical imperatives are based on our desires, different from the categorical imperative (Frederick 4). Categorical imperatives are duties that come from reason. It is seen as the universal law, which applies to all human beings because we are rational (Frederick 4). It tells us what to do irrespective of what our desires may be. We can apply to the previous example (the owner of

Open Document