Kant Universal Law

Kevin T. Walsh

Kant develops two kinds of imperatives of duty expressed through an ought (30). This ought is thus the relation used to connect the objective principle to a will (30). Using the hypothetical imperative as a means to something else or happiness is “assertoric” (32). The categorical imperative is not grounded in any other aim. Using the categorical imperative, Kant develops his universal law formulation and by doing so, also eliminates maxims.

Kant considers a maxim to be the “the subjective principle for action”(37). While the objective principle is “valid for every rational being and is in accord with how one ought to act,”(37) the subjective principle contains the practical rule that reason determines in accord with the conditions of the subject”(37). The maxim of the categorical imperative must be derived a priori since a hypothetical imperative is good for some aim (31). “The categorical imperative would be that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end”(31). If there is no reference to any other end then one can only act in accord with the moral law. “Rational nature exists as end in itself” (46). Categorical imperatives are the only commands of action “free of all influences of contingent grounds that only experience can provide”(43).

Kant writes that all imperatives of duty command either hypothetically or categorically. “Now if the action were good merely as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is represented as good in itself, hence necessary, as the principle of the will, in a will that in itself accords with reason, then it is categorical”(31). Hypothetical imperatives command with respect to some particular end while categorical imperatives command objectively without reference to any end (31). Kant uses the categorical imperative to come up with his universal law formulation, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can...