Kant’s theory of moral judgment
When Kant presents his theory of moral judgment, he discusses both hypothetical and categorical imperatives. What is the difference between the two? Kant tells us that in his way of seeing things, doing the right thing is a categorical imperative (Do what’s right!), not a hypothetical one.
Kant has several different formulations of his “Categorical Imperative,” one of which may be paraphrased as “act only according to that [subjective or personal] maxim whereby you can, at one and the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” What does Kant mean here?
Explain Kant’s position as it relates to or contrasts with consequentialist ethics and ethical relativism. Do you agree with the accepted characterization of Kant’s view as a nonconsequentialist theory? What is your position with respect to Kant’s view? Does he get it right? Explain and defend your view and use at least one specific example to illustrate your position.
Sample Solution
Kant`s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for everyone. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence that all rational creatures are bound by the same moral law. Thus in answer to the question, “What should I do?” Kant replies that we should act rationally, in accordance with a universal moral law. Kant also argued that his ethical theory requires belief in free will, God, and the immortality of the soul.
