Kant Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives Essay Sample

📌Category: Philosophers, Philosophical Concept, Philosophy
📌Words: 1370
📌Pages: 5
📌Published: 16 February 2022

In this essay, I argue that the supreme principal of morality must be a categorical imperative rather than a hypothetical imperative, and that Kant is correct in making this classification. I will describe and compare the features of both hypothetical and categorical imperatives with regards to the supreme principle of morality and emphasize the role of good will and the nature of moral requirements in proving that Kant is correct. 

Moral philosophy according to Kant is based on a fundamental principle, namely the supreme principal of morality or the Categorical Imperative. Kant recognizes humans as rational agents, capable of acting based on our rational wills. He is then able to form a connection between our rationality and morality through the assessment that to act morally, we would have to act rationally or based on our rational wills and to act immorally is to exhibit acts of irrationality. This begs the question, how should we act morally based on our rational wills? Kant then introduces the idea of imperatives, which essentially means commands of what we ought to do as rational agents. The decision of following these ‘oughts’ or imperatives ultimately distinguishes our ability to act rationally or irrationally. These imperatives take two different forms, namely hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.

A hypothetical imperative is an imperative based on our specific, willed ends. This means that a hypothetical imperative is a command of what we ought to do based on the goals or aspirations that we have set for ourselves. It is subjective and conditional, meaning it only applies to those who have willed a specific end, and that it does not apply to everyone. For instance, Frank may have hopes of getting into the University of Edinburgh to study Philosophy. The requirement for this is to achieve an A in A-Level English, something that Frank has to study for. Therefore, the hypothetical imperative, which constitutes an act and an end, is that for Frank to be accepted into the University of Edinburgh, he must get an A in A-Level English. The act, which is getting an A in A-Level English, will ultimately lead to the end which is gaining acceptance into the University of Edinburgh. This is hypothetical because this is an end that is unique to Frank, it is Frank’s aim to achieve, and the act is quite specific to Frank if he wants to achieve the goal of studying at the University of Edinburgh. 

A categorical imperative on the other hand refers to an ought command that applies to rational agents despite the ends we will. This makes categorical imperatives objective by nature, as categorical imperatives apply to every single rational agent regardless of their goals or aspirations. The basis of the idea of categorical imperatives, unlike hypothetical imperatives, is that it is based on pure reason alone, whereas the subjective hypothetical imperative can be formed based on our specific inclinations or desires. An example of a categorical imperative would be to not steal. This is a general command that does not apply to our specific willed ends and is unconditional.

As Kant puts it, the supreme principal of morality is related to us rational agents having moral obligations, or having a moral duty. Unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives allow us to uphold these moral obligations or duties as we cannot escape categorical imperatives. Regardless of what circumstances I or anybody else is going through, I cannot change my ends when it comes to categorical imperatives because they are not the ends that I have willed, rather they are commands independent of my willed ends. If moral principles were hypothetical imperatives, it would be easy to make those principles not apply to me by simply abandoning or changing the ends that I have willed. Kant puts a particular emphasis on the role of duty and how motivation by duty signals respect for moral law. It is therefore clear that the supreme principal of morality has to be a categorical imperative because acting out of duty demonstrates our practice of prioritizing the adherence to an authoritative, binding moral law instead of submitting to our own inclinations or desires.

The first argument that Kant makes is that there is not an unqualifiable or unconditional good except the good will. Unlike other traits such as intelligence, happiness or courage that can be put to bad use and for immoral purposes, the good will does not require any other good to be good, meaning it is good in itself, or by virtue of volition. Rather, other goods would require the condition of good will to make them good, making these other values qualifiable goods. To act out of good will is the purest form of good, and thus deservedly makes it a crucial aspect to what the supreme principal of morality should embody. The nature and value of the good will that rests on the fact that it is good in itself is compatible with the supreme principle of morality being a categorical imperative as the good will would not require it achieving a certain end. The ends, which indicate an actions functionality cannot take away from the fact that the value of the good will is only that a rational agent possesses and maintains a good will. For instance, Bob and Joe see that a baby is stuck on the branch of a tree. Out of good will, both Bob and Joe climb the tree to try and save the baby and eventually, Bob is able to bring the baby back down to safety. Despite Bob achieving the ends of saving the baby, on moral grounds both Bob and Joe are equally worthy as both actions possessed the value of the good will. This leans the argument of the supreme principal of morality closer towards being a categorical imperative because had it been a hypothetical imperative, the good will would have been reliant on its ability to achieve its ends rather than by being good in itself. 

Another argument that Kant puts forward to consolidate the idea that the supreme principal of morality is a categorical imperative and not a hypothetical imperative is due to the nature of moral requirements. The demands of morality are as such that it is irrespective of our ends, as mentioned earlier. This means that the nature of morality is so that everyone can adhere to it, whether or not being moral serves our ends. This is in line with the concept of a categorical imperative, which is also a command that we ought to follow regardless of our willed ends. The nature of morality that we experience as moral agents is also as such that we must follow these moral commands, and they are not merely propositions that we can choose not to do. Therefore, this solidifies the claim that the due to the nature of morality being universal and unconditional in a sense, and being commands that as moral agents we must follow, the supreme principle of morality must be a categorical imperative.

An objection to this takes the form of J.S Mill’s idea on what qualifies as the fundamental criterion of morality, namely the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’. This principle, which Mill uses to explain that an act is right if it promotes happiness and is wrong if it promotes the reverse of happiness, can be seen as a hypothetical imperative from a certain perspective. If achieving or the promotion of happiness is someone’s willed end, then Mill’s principle, which many believe to be the significant criteria of evaluating the rightness or wrongness of an action is in fact a hypothetical imperative.

Kant views happiness from a slightly different perspective. He asserts that while it is our duty to obtain happiness, it should not interfere or influence the motivation for how we act. Basically, we should not be acting out of the motivation of happiness, rather act out of duty as dutiful acts complement morality. Even if an act out of inclination to happiness is able to foster prosperity, Kant believes it does not possess significant moral worth as it lacks the morality of the good will and obedience to moral law. The pursuit of happiness could lead us to immoral acts according to Kant. If Kate and Toby were in desperate need of money, stealing from one person would maximize their happiness, making the act right in the eyes of a utilitarian. Therefore, Mill’s principle to promote the greatest overall happiness does not align with the ideas of a categorical imperative and hence cannot qualify as the supreme principle of morality. This therefore highlights Kant’s arguments as being the correct foundation of what features the supreme principal of morality should have.

In this essay, I have proven through the argument of good will being good in itself and the nature of moral requirements being universal and unconditional that Kant’s classification of the categorical imperative as the supreme principle of morality is correct.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.