Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In Section 2, Kant focuses on moral reasons, and investigates what sort of reasons these are.
He distinguishes two types of practical reasons, hypothetical reasons and categorical reasons.
According to Kant, moral reasons are categorical.
Imperatives = rational demands issued to imperfect wills. These are experienced by imperfect
wills as rational constraints.
They say things like “Such and such is the rational, and the only rational, thing to do (in your
condition) and reason says you ought do it.”
We can distinguish b/w the Hypothetical Imperative and more specific hypothetic imperatives.
The HI = One ought to take the necessary means in one’s power to achieve one’s ends (or else
give up the ends).
“If you want to drive that nail into the board, then you ought to use a hammer.”
“If you want to pass your biology test, then you ought to study for it tonight.”
An imperative = hypothetical when the rational constraint that it expresses is based on the fact
that taking certain means is necessary to achieve your personal ends (“rules of skill”) or to
further your happiness (“counsels of prudence”).
Kant: It is “analytically” true—that is, it is true simply in virtue of the meaning of the terms. To
will an end, says Kant, simply is to will at the same time the necessary means to that end.
We can escape the constraints of HIs by giving up our specific end, revising our conception of
happiness, or temporarily suspending pursuit of our own happiness.
By contrast with HIs we cannot escape the constraints of categorical imperatives by revising our
ends etc.
The idea = certain acts are rationally required in themselves, not just as means to a further end.
1
This handout is from Dr. Craig Duncan, Ithaca College, with slight adaptation.
Now, recall from our earlier notes any genuine rational principle of conduct will be universally
valid (that is, all principles can be stated in generic forms that all people should accept).
But although all rational principles have universal validity, we can distinguish b/w universal and
non-universal bindingness.
Hypothetical imperatives are universally valid, but are not rationally binding in all
circumstances, since they apply only to people who aim at the ends they specify.
As in the case of hypothetical imperatives, with categorical imperatives we can distinguish b/w
The Categorical Imperative, and other more specific categorical imperatives.
The Categorical Imperative = I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that
my maxim should become a universal law.
Maxim M(a1) = “Whenever continuing to live will bring me more pain than pleasure, I shall
commit suicide out of self-love.”
Kant’ss argument:
Maxim M(a3) = When I am comfortable as I am, I shall let all of my talents rust.
Kant’s argument:
Maxim M(a4) = When I am flourishing and others are in distress, I shall give nothing to charity.
Kant’s argument:
These four examples are all applications of Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only in
accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become
universal law.”
Interestingly, Kant gave several different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, which he
claimed to be equivalent in meaning.
Kant’s idea here is that one should not treat others in ways they couldn’t rationally assent to.
Perhaps the connection is this: If I cannot will maxim M as universal law, then I am acting for
reasons that it is not possible for everyone to share. But to act toward people on the basis of
reasons they cannot possibly share is to use them, to treat them as a mere means to my goals.