Comparing Kant's Three Formulations Of The Categorical Imperative

Kant’s deontological view explains that reason is the ground of morality, with the moral principle being the categorical imperative. Not only that, but categorical imperatives are moral requirements. On the other hand, hypothetical imperatives are not moral requirements. The categorical imperative is also known as the Supreme Principle of Morality and is formulated in three different ways. I will discuss the hypothetical imperative, and only two out of the three formulations of the categorical imperative. The hypothetical imperative is basically if I want something then I must do something else to obtain what I want. For example, if I want to go to a concert I have to buy the ticket in order to attend it. This imperative is based off my wants or desires. Kant does not like to use this imperative simply due to the fact that it does not characterize moral actions, and like stated before are based on my desires. Not only that, but due to the fact that someone can deny the action to get what they desire does not go with what Kant wants. He wants someone who will act accordingly to moral requirements and not just brush it off and make an excuse not to do something. Kant does …show more content…
The categorical imperative has three formulations but only two will be discussed. In the first formulation of the categorical imperative Kant states, “ Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that should become a universal law”(Justice, “The Supreme Principle of Morality”). With this statement maxim means being a principle or a general rule, will means to intend to do something, and universal law states how all people ought to act without any exceptions. Basically do act on things with good intent and not self-interest because then it would not be any moral worth if things were just done for the