Hypothetical Imperatives as Commands - Coursework Example

Humanities Ethics: Questions and Answers Chapter One: Ethical Theories No. 3 What is the implication ofthe right theory The theory of the right is concerned with an agent thought of circumstances surrounding an individual’s actions (Robert, 92). It is about the moral duty of an individual pegged on certain circumstances. Some examples of the right theory include the Divine Command and the pure reason. 2. What is the connectivity between Kant and the right theories? Any rational person upon understanding the moral law that exist in every human agent and upon looking at the world will know a priori that morality is universally necessary. This fundamental principle is what guides Immanuel Kant’s ethical system. According to Emmanuel Kant, categorical imperative is the standard of rationality upon which moral requirements are based. Categorical imperative is a formal technique that is used to evaluate any morally applicable action (Timmerman 23). In order to determine whether an action is morally right, the categorical imperative is used as a source of moral justification. Kant understood that moral law is by nature rational, impartial, and universal. For instance, an imperative is a command such as ‘Close the door!’ or ‘Come here!’ therefore; an imperative is either categorical or imperative. Kant defined Hypothetical imperatives as commands that are used to fulfill particular human goals and desires and he considered them dependent upon personal situations. As such, they are limited to specific circumstances, or to the people who have these dispositions. He argued that hypothetical imperatives are not necessarily impractical. In fact, he conceded that human beings live by these imperatives values in their everyday lives (Timmons 22). However, he noted that these imperatives are non-moral. If any action is performed as a means to an end then that action is based on a hypothetical imperative. Hypothetical imperative applies under the condition that there is end to every action. 3. What are the understandings of the Kant’s categorical imperative? Kant asserts that categorical imperative is the primary principle or moral duty. It is an imperative by virtue of commanding humanity to exercise their wills in a certain manner. On the other hand, it is categorical because it applies to those who possess the rational will without taking into consideration what ends they might have or might not have (Timmerman 57). However, its application to the rational humanity is not based on any condition that is, for any act to be deemed as a categorical imperative, it must prove to be good in itself and conforms to reason (Timmerman, 76). It must embody the ability to universalize the action. That is, in a similar circumstance, other people would act in accordance with the same rules. 4. Are the hypothetical imperatives in relation to Kant and right theories apply in the contemporary families? The main difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives is that categorical imperative requires that we must act in accordance with it without exception. However, hypothetical imperative is limited to specific circumstances for instance; it allows that if one is tired, they are free to bed. Categorical imperative does not obligate humanity to undertake any particular action rather; it demands that actions should meet particular condition (Timmerman 36). Human being must be able to ensure that the maxim behind his or her action can be replicated by anyone else in a similar situation. 5. What are the relation and implication of Kant and maxim in the contemporary world? Kant figured out categorical imperative from two maxims; objectivity and respect for all persons. According to the objectivity maxim, an action is right only if would be right for any other individual in similar situation. The maxim of respect states that an act is right so long as it treats others as ‘ends in themselves’. It is important to note that categorical imperative is not directly concerned with our actions. Somewhat, it deals with our motives; the reasons that determine our actions. Therefore, we are obligated to act morally simply for the sake of acting morally and not because of any other reasons such as going to heaven or being liked by others. “Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.” According to Kant, there are principle principles that govern humanity including the intent to be objective and command respect for all persons. Kant’s constraints were divided by this formulation into two: perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duty refrains from engaging in impermissible maxims (Johnson 77). In this case, the impermissible maxims refers to actions that result into logical contradiction when universalized. For instance, attempting to universalize stealing results into a chaotic world for everyone. Therefore, there is a perfect duty not to steal; doing the contrary will be morally wrong. Imperfect duty on the other hand cannot be met perfectly even though humanity still holds the responsibility to pursue them. Examples of imperfect duty include pursuing ones careers. It is impossible to perfectly fulfill building ones career. Furthermore, no one is morally obligated to pursue their career in the first place. The second formulation states that, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end” (Kant 36). This formulation requires that everyone has a perfect duty to treat oneself and others as ends and not as mere means to an end. Treating oneself and others as mere means to an end is irrational and inconsistent with the first formulation (Timmerman 26). The third formulation often referred to the ‘kingdom of ends’ emphasizes the rational will possessed by everyone enables the imagination of universalization of maxims. Our rational will should enable us to imagine creating legislation over the universe. Therefore, it is important that every maxim on which a person act must be such that anyone in the ‘kingdom of ends’ could adopt it and everyone in the kingdom would still be treated with respect (Kant 37). 6. What do you understand by the term “The Golden Rule” ‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law … (Mathew 7:12) NIV.’ Therefore, the golden rule directs that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Reliability requires that I judge actions done to me or to people I care about in the same manner that I judge actions done to others unless the actions differ in some morally pertinent aspect. On the other hand our attitudes must be consistent with our moral judgment. In other words, if I believe that my actions are morally permissible for somebody to do something to me then I must not object to him or her doing it to me (Rohlf 83). For example, I am a mechanic I frequently overcharge my customers over two hundred dollars yet I complain bitterly when I am overcharged by my plumber. To be consistent, I must either change my moral judgment of lying to my customers or declare that it is wrong for me to lie to my customers (Johnson 92). Alternatively, I can change my attitude and judgement about the overcharging by my plumber and say that his lying about my plumbing repairs is morally permissible; hence, I can never see it as morally wrong. However, if I judge that lying to my customers is morally wrong, but continue to lie then I become inconsistent because lying to my customers contradict my belief that lying is wrong. 7. What are the similarities between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative? The similarity between categorical imperative and the golden rule is superficial in that each principle challenges human beings to imagine themselves on each side of their actions as either the victim or the agent. Several scholars have argued that the golden rule is simply a paraphrase fundamental principle of categorical imperative. In each case, the individual is faced with the consequence of his or her own actions. 8. What are the difference between the Golden Rule and Categorical Imperative? Unlike categorical imperative, the golden rule does not include the principle of duty to oneself. It also fails to include the duty of benevolence to others (Johnson 48). Majority of people would gladly refuse aid from others so that they are morally free from the duty of giving aid to others. The golden rule is founded on preference and not duty; as such it cannot be universalized as is the case with categorical imperative. Works Cited Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Edward N. Zalta (ed.) 2010. Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed., translated by James W. Ellington. Hackett. 1993. Rohlf, Michael. "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.). 2010. Timmerman, JensKant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007. Timmons, Mark, ed., 2002, Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays. New York: Oxford U. P. Read More