A rchive Date
[ 10-05-2004 ]
Category
[ Philosophy ]
sub-Categoy
[ Metaphysics ]
|
[http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:nDDmwp4jatwJ:www.uwyo.edu/moffett/courses/phil1000/lecture_15.pdf+hypothetical+imperatives&hl=en
Kantian Deontology
Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives
Are motivations worthy of moral consideration?
For example, suppose that someone gets on a plane and decides to just shoot people at random. Furthermore, suppose that this person happens to shoot terrorists. His intent was just to kill people, but the act happened to have good consequences. Was his act good, given that it had good consequences, although was done with bad intent?
It seems that the answer is “No!” So it seems that the goodness or badness of a given act is determined in some way by the motivations or principles on which the act is performed and not on its consequences. Let’s look at this issue from the perspective of Kant’s ethics.
A hypothetical imperative is an imperative of the following form: If I want X and believe that I can get X by doing Y, then I ought to do Y. For example, if I want a cup of coffee and believe I can get one by going to the kitchen then, all else being equal, I ought to go to the kitchen. Such a rule is hypothetical because it says that I should do Y if a certain subjective condition is met, namely, if I want X. It is an imperative because it tells me what I ought to do given my beliefs and desires. So the application of the rule depends on what things I do or do not want. These conditions are subjective in the sense that what a person wants is not generally open to rational evaluation.
Somebody else could want Z instead of X (e.g., tea instead of coffee) without in any relevant sense being wrong. A
hypothetical imperative then is an imperative (i.e., a command to behave in a certain way) which only applies if certain subjective conditions are met.
In contrast to a hypothetical imperative, a categorical imperative looks like this: I ought to do Y. A categorical imperative is an imperative (i.e., a command to behave in a certain way) which applies no matter what. That is, in a categorical imperative there is no need to look and see what things I do or do not want in order to determine if the rule applies―the application of the rule is independent of my wants.
Now it is important to note that categorical imperatives are objective precisely because they make no appeal to our desires. Consequently, whatever reasons I can give for acting in accordance with a certain categorical imperative will be equally valid for any other rational being. That is, I will act upon a categorical imperative merely because I can think and reason, and not because of any wants or desires I might have. But what is rational for me is equally rational for anyone else in the same circumstances. Let us make this into an explicit argument:
- Since categorical imperative makes no appeal to a person’s wants or desires, a person’s reasons for acting from it must be matters of pure reason (i.e., intelligence independent of desire).
- Rational beings do not differ in matters of pure reason.
- Therefore, one person’s reasons for acting from a categorical imperative will be equally valid for any other person (rational being).
In short, your reasons for acting on a categorical imperative will make no appeal to anything which makes you different or unique (e.g., your goals, desires, projects, etc.).
Acting From Duty
Now Kant believes that in order for an action to have moral value, it must be done from duty, and not merely in accordance with duty. What does this mean? According to Kant, to act from duty means that you act out of respect for the moral law; whereas to act in accordance with duty means that your action is the one which the moral law requires but the rule on which you are acting is not the moral rule.
For example, suppose that student A refrains from cheating on a test even though she knows she won’t get caught. Suppose that the rule on which she is acting is the following (categorical) imperative: I ought not to cheat. Then, according to Kant, A’s action is done from duty and so has moral value. Now consider a different student B who also refrains from cheating on the very same test. Unlike A, B acts on the following (hypothetical) imperative: If I cant to be a successful entrepreneur, then I ought not to cheat (because I will need to know the information on this test and if I cheat I won’t learn that information). According to Kant, B’s act is not done from duty and has no moral worth. For B is not merely acting out of respect for the moral law but is, instead, looking at the consequences of her action (namely, whether or not she will become a successful entrepreneur). B is doing the right thing (not cheating) but for the wrong reason (future success).
If you think about the above example, you will see that any act done from a hypothetical imperative will fail to have moral value. For hypothetical imperatives, by definition, require a consideration of the effects of the action–they say, “You ought to do Y if you want to achieve X.” Thus they require us to check and see if we desire to achieve X or not. And we will act from a hypothetical imperative only if we do desire its effects. It seems, therefore, that we can act from duty only if the rule from which our action is derived is a categorical imperative.
This gives rise to the following line of reasoning:
- Insofar as I am attempting to act morally, I must be acting on a categorical imperative.
- But my reasons for acting on a categorical imperative must be equally valid for everyone (see above argument).
- Therefore, insofar as I am attempting to act morally, I must be acting on a principle which everyone else could and, indeed, should act on.
From this we see that the moral laws must have two characteristics:
- They must apply universally (in the sense that they apply to all rational beings)
- they must be categorical (in the sense that they make no reference to subjective goals and desires).
The Categorical Imperative
Of course, not all categorical imperatives underlie morally acceptable behavior. For instance, actions based on the categorical imperative “Cheat!” are not morally acceptable.
This raises the question, “Which categorical imperatives are we to follow?”
According to Kant, the one categorical imperative that must be followed is this:
Act only according to that principle whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (to hold for everyone).
This is what he calls The Categorical Imperative and you can think of it as a test for categorical imperatives. Acts done out of respect for categorical imperatives that pass this test are moral acts Applications of the Categorical Imperative•
- Murder. Can you will that killing an innocent person becomes a universal law? Suppose you did, society would not be very stable, and you would be in continuous danger.
- Cheating. What would happen if you were to will that cheating became a universal principle? Grades would become meaningless, as everybody would have the same grades.
- Lying. If you were to will that everyone lie, then communication becomes pointless, as you can never be confident that you are being spoken to truthfully.
Second formulation of the Categorical Imperative
- Never treat others only as a means, but also as an end.
This says that we shouldn't treat others only as a tool for attaining consequences, rather, we should treat others as rational beings deserving of respect in and of themselves.
 Glossary]
|