Main Formulations of The Categorical Imperative by I.kant

Introduction

Immanuel Kant developed the concept of the categorical imperative to emphasize the importance of moral duty. For Kant, hypothetical imperatives were insufficient because he believed it was more important to focus on morality rather than the consequences of an action. He proposed three categorical imperatives intended to converge into one central idea. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the first and third formulations of the imperative are incompatible. These two ideas are very similar but have subtle differences that contribute to a contradiction. Clarifying both types first will make it easier to recognize this distinction.

Main Formulations of The Categorical Imperative by Immanuel Kant

The first categorical imperative concerns the actions an individual chooses to take. It states, "I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law" (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 14). Through this maxim, the use of reason, duty, and the will are crucial. Essentially, nothing else besides the imperative should matter when faced with a situation. An example Kant uses is lying to someone under pressure to avoid a particular situation, which is something many people do frequently. He then elaborates on the pros and cons of such an act, providing a detailed analysis of the lying scenario. If one were to lie to get out of something, it might backfire and create a problem. Even if there was a situation where you could lie without any immediate consequences, the fear or consideration of potential consequences is the difference. Being truthful out of duty and high moral standards is vastly different from being truthful out of fear of consequences. It is crucial not to stray far from duty. Kant concludes that whether it benefits you in the long run or not, if this maxim were to become universal, it would not be advantageous. It would not work because one cannot will a universal law to lie. If this were his law, none of his promises would hold any importance, and nobody would believe him. This maxim would destroy itself because if it became universal, there would be no promise at all. The universality of the situation seems to be the most important. The situational basis does not make a difference. You should act in a certain way according to duty and will. This law can be applied to any rational being in any situation. When making a decision, the physical characteristics of the situation are irrelevant to eliminate subjective scenarios. In other words, hypothetical imperatives do not show morals and duty because they are conditional, whereas the categorical imperative is something you just think and do, not based on desires or needs.

Kant further supports his findings by explaining why the imperative can be applied. If the maxim you are practicing cannot be willed to a universal law, it must be rejected. The reasons for the rejection are also very important. For example, something cannot be rejected because of a disadvantage to oneself or others; it must be rejected because it is not suitable to be considered a universal law. Kant states that respect outweighs inclination and that the necessity of acting respectfully towards a law establishes duty, which is a condition of the will that is good (Kant, 1785/1993).

The Third Formulation and The Kingdom of Ends

The third formulation of the categorical imperative involves both the individual and society as a whole. It focuses on the ends to which people and societies act. Kant introduces the concept of a kingdom of ends, where individuals apply the third formulation of the categorical imperative. Kant describes this as a concept of every human will as a will that legislates universal law in all its maxims (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 38). Kant considers all other attempts to discover morality as failures. He sees man as bound to law by his duty, but the problem is that this is not all he is bound to. Kant claims that the will has been coerced when laws are made, and people only obey them because of the constraints imposed by the lawmaker. Therefore, this law did not arise from the individual's will but is obeyed by the individual because of fear and conformity. Through this conclusion, Kant emphasizes that duty is lost. By merely obeying the law and having no part in its creation, duty is replaced by acting from interest. This is where the kingdom of ends comes in. The kingdom is a systematic union of different rational beings through common laws. The idea is to eliminate personal differences in rational beings and private ends and envision a whole of ends in connection. This is supposed to create a systematic union of rational beings through common objective laws (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 39). A rational being would belong to the kingdom of ends as a member by helping create laws and also abiding by them. This creates the necessity of duty and makes the relationship between individuals very important. Feelings, impulse, and inclination are eliminated, promoting the idea of a rational being who obeys only laws that he simultaneously endorses himself. The law that all of society abides by and agrees upon would most commonly become ethical laws that are subconsciously followed by nearly every rational being. The autonomy of the situation helps paint the picture. The individual himself is involved in creating the law and is entrenched in it.

Conclusion: Comparing The First and Third Formulations

These formulations of the categorical imperative are very similar, but they differ in subtle and important ways. The first formulation is more unity-based with the universality form of the will. In this context, the third categorical imperative leans more towards totality, encompassing the system of ends. Unity and totality seem like similar conditions, but it is the motivation towards these laws that make them different. The unity is a personal will that you act in accordance with. A person would act in a way they feel could be made a law. They are observing their own tendencies and actions. In the third imperative, the individual's will takes a back seat to the totality of will. An overall will exists that binds all rational beings as ends in themselves, connected with the complete moral maxim. Essentially, the first formulation deals with the individual and how they expect actions to take place, whereas the third formulation focuses on other people as well as the individual as a contributor.

Another difference between these wills is the heteronomy of the first imperative compared to the autonomy of the third imperative. The first categorical imperative deals with the external incentive of obeying certain laws. This focuses on obeying laws that would be considered valid for all rational beings. This may sound a lot like the third categorical imperative, but this one focuses on the fact that each rational being is a potential author of the laws valid for all. This is where dignity comes into play. Each individual, under this maxim, has a distinct value to overall humanity as they are entrenched in its structure. The third formulation seems to promote ethical laws by which people are so involved that they subconsciously obey. The kingdom of ends is one cohesive unit that has every rational being on the same page.

This categorical imperative could be examined and dismantled for years to develop a complete critique, but it is helpful to recognize each formulation as distinct and different ideas. The first and third formulations indeed have obvious differences when investigated further. This is what makes philosophy a challenging field to publish a failsafe argument. Immanuel Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative differed in terms of will, dignity, universality, and duty involved, and are two different ideas that have a similar foundation.

References

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1785)