What are the main differences between hypothetical and categorical imperatives - Essay Example

In reference to Immanuel Kant’s work, both hypothetical and categorical imperatives have been immensely and clearly differentiated. To start with, hypothetical imperatives are considered as instructions which direct one to act in a certain manner or way so as to achieve a desired result. For instance, if one considers owning an expensive car, then he or she must search for a good paying job to contribute in coming up with the funds. In most instances, hypothetical imperatives apply to individuals who wish to achieve the results.

On the other hand, categorical imperatives are instructions which direct individuals on what to do irrespective of one’s desires. In other words, they are referred to as commands since one is left with no option but to act accordingly, an example: Though shall not murder. The results are normally good and of upright morals. Kant (vi) claims that the moral law can only be expressed in the form of a categorical imperative due to the fact that it is imposed by the reason itself but not externally.

He also states that the moral law applies universally and should therefore have standard ordering principle in which everyone is expected to observe. Kant is therefore right because, when the moral law is expressed in terms of comparative imperative then the society at large works harmoniously and each member acts as a law unto himself. This then becomes an ideal place for a morally upright community. Q 2: How does Kant explain the difference between perfect and imperfect duties According to Kant, would it be permissible to tell a lie if the lie might save someone's life Explain Kant's position on this and whether or not you agree.

According to the ground work by Kant (103), he focuses on two types of duties which include perfect and imperfect. Kant looks at perfect duties as the actions which when evaluated according to the first maxim, they bring about innate contradictions. To state it in clear terms, they are actions that produce innate contradictions when they are reasonably applied as worldwide laws. For instance, murder would be considered as a perfect duty since if murder was to be applied as a world wide law it would eventually lead to an inherent contradiction.

Since murder cannot be rationally applied as a universal law, it is therefore not permissible under the first maxim. On the other hand, imperfect duties involve various acts that when evaluated according to the first maxim or when they are reasonably applied as universal laws; they do not bring about any inherent contradictions (Kant 104). According to Kant, lying is considered as an imperfect duty since if it were applied as a universal law, it would not raise any inherent contradiction. Lying is therefore not allowed under the first maxim despite its application as a universal law.

In reference to Kant, it would therefore not be permissible to tell a lie even if it would save someone's life. In my opinion, a lie which would save someone's life is necessary since one will have played a role in saving a life which is very critical. However, lying should not be used as a form of defense or for purposes of obtaining favor. Q 3: People in distress often make "false promises" in order to alleviate their situation. According to Kant, is such action in accordance with the moral law or not Paying particular attention to his understanding of the categorical imperative and what it prescribes, explain Kant's position on this.

Do you agree with Kant Why or why not According to Kant, making of false promises so as to alleviate one's situation is not in accordance with the moral law since it rests on a maxim that can be comprehensibly universalized. The moral rules normally require telling the truth and keeping of promises, therefore making of false p