Immanuel Kants Groundwork: Imperatives and the Moral Law

Kant establishes a very stark contrast between the moral motivation of duty action coming solely from with satisfying our various desires and inclinations. These include: Self-love perhaps even appearing as duty Desire for pleasure or avoidance of pain Fear of God The desire to perfect our nature Feelings and inclinations

a pure will, with no other motivation and all the non-moral or immoral motivations which have to do

He grants that it is very difficult and in fact may be impossible to find cases in our own experience duty. But, this does not mean that his moral theory is wrong just that we need to look to something other than experience as our guide here reason. What we need to do, in Kants view is very strictly and rigorously disentangle practical reason from any principles derived from experience.

where someone, either in general or in a particular action, can be said with certainty to act solely from

Kant starts with the concept of law. Everything in nature acts in accordance with laws. But there is a key difference between rational and non-rational beings when it comes to how this works. Non-rational beings are determined by laws. They dont have the freedom to do otherwise

Rational beings have the capacity to act according to their conception of laws to impose laws of various sorts upon themselves, thereby to act by principles that is what a free will does

A will that is not entirely or perfectly good pretty much all of our wills can let or make several different things determine its actions: The desires and inclinations that are in our nature and our will these are subjective

Laws which reason recognizes principles of reason these are objective and imperatives

Imperatives are either hypothetical or categorical:

Categorical Hypothetical

Indicate that an action is to be done

Not in order to attain some other end, but End of action is because action is right happiness which we do in fact all desire end of action is No question of whether reasonable or good

Imperatives of Morality

(commands of morality)
Imperatives of Prudence

Indicate that an action is to be done to attain an end

(counsels of prudence)
Imperatives of Skill

Indicate that an action is to be done in order to attain an end

(rules of skill)

Copyright Gregory B. Sadler, ReasonIO, 2012

Immanuel Kants Groundwork: Imperatives and the Moral Law

Kant provides three different formulations of the Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork: law of nature.

Formulation 1: act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal Formulation 2: act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means. legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. Formulation 3: every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a

Each of these expresses one key aspect of the notion of the good will, and of duty as ones prime motivation.

These formulations of the Categorical Imperative provide us ways to determine whether a given action would involve a different, ultimately egoistic motivation, in which case it would be morally valueless. Lets look closely at the first two formulations:

would be genuinely in line with duty, and therefore possess moral value or whether to the contrary, it

The first formulation has three critical components: Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

the general rule of action which your particular action would fall under

you actually have to be able to will this, to deliberately choose that rule of action

The rule of action has to rule for everyone

be universalizable, i.e. the

The second formulation has four critical components: Humanity = a being that is rational, autonomous, possesses dignity in anyone not just in people

yourself, not just in other

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.

treating as an end means as if possessing intrinsic worth, autonomy

not simply as a means

to some end (note: could be as a means and end)

Copyright Gregory B. Sadler, ReasonIO, 2012

Immanuel Kants Groundwork: Imperatives and the Moral Law

Kant applies both of these formulations to four example or scenarios, selected to represent a set of duties Strict Duties to Self Duty: Preserving ones life even when one does not want to live Strict Duties to Others Duty: telling the truth, even when it puts one at a disadvantage

Is it right or wrong to end ones life if it has become a life one does not want to live?
Meritorious Duties to Self Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead

Is it right or wrong to promise to repay a loan when one knows one will not be able to repay it?
Meritorious Duties to Others Duty: Benevolence doing good to other people,

promoting or producing other peoples happiness

Is it right or wrong to devote oneself to a life of enjoyment rather than cultivating ones talents?

Is it right or wrong not to make efforts to promote the happiness of other people?

How would the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative apply to these? Strict Duties to Self Strict Duties to Others

Duty: Preserving ones life even when one does not want to live

Duty: telling the truth, even when it puts one at a disadvantage

Maxim: from self-love, I shorten my life when it seems likely to involve more bad things than good
This cannot be universalized, because it involves a contradiction using the stimulation to the very life one possesses to shorten that life

Maxim: from self-love, when I need money, I will promise falsely to repay a loan
This cannot be universalized, because the very notions of promising, truth and falsity would become mixed up

Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead

Meritorious Duties to Self

Duty: Benevolence doing good to other people,

Meritorious Duties to Others

promoting or producing other peoples happiness

Maxim: I will devote myself to enjoyment, and not develop the faculties and talents I possess
This could be universalized, but cannot actually be willed a rational being wills that his faculties be developed as fully as possible

Maxim: While harming nobody, I will not do anything to help other people
This could be universalized, but cannot actually be willed a rational being realizes that he or she may have need of others sympathy or love

Copyright Gregory B. Sadler, ReasonIO, 2012

Immanuel Kants Groundwork: Imperatives and the Moral Law

What about the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Strict Duties to Self Strict Duties to Others

Duty: Preserving ones life even when one does not want to live

Duty: telling the truth, even when it puts one at a disadvantage

Maxim: from self-love, I shorten my life when it seems likely to involve more bad things than good Would I be treating humanity as simply a means?
I would be treating humanity in myself my own life-- as merely a means to enjoying a life that is more good than bad.

Maxim: from self-love, when I need money, I will promise falsely to repay a loan Would I be treating humanity as simply a means?
I would be treating humanity in the other person or people to who I lie as merely a means to gaining money

This conflicts with treating humanity as an end Duty: Cultivating ones talents through work, even when one might just enjoy oneself instead Meritorious Duties to Self

This conflicts with treating humanity as an end Duty: Benevolence doing good to other people, Meritorious Duties to Others

promoting or producing other peoples happiness

Maxim: I will devote myself to enjoyment, and not develop the faculties and talents I possess Would I be treating humanity as simply a means? this would not conflict with treating
humanity in myself as an end

Maxim: While harming nobody, I will not do anything to help other people Would I be treating humanity as simply a means? this would not conflict with treating
humanity in others as an end it would harmonize negatively with it

it would not harmonize with it

neglecting development of ones capacities does not promote the end of humanity

not interfering with anyones happiness

it would not harmonize positively with it

Copyright Gregory B. Sadler, ReasonIO, 2012