Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
hypothetical and categorical imperatives (morality and reason (morality…
hypothetical and categorical imperatives
hypothetical imperatives
specify a mean to an end
hypothetical imperative= if you want to see the show , you ought to get to the theater at least 15 minutes early
with desire described in the antecedent----- (you want to see the show)
command in the consequent -------------------(you need to get to the theater 15 minuets early)
in wanting to have a healthy lifestyle, you will have a healthy lifestyle, ---- to will and end is to will the effects
but to will the effect you must will its cause, = to will an effect you must will the cause .--- the cause is the means
it is important here that you dont merely want the end , you will it
so by willing the ends you will the means
the end or desire is explicit
but hypothetical imperatives can leave the assumed desire implicit , e.g eat at least 5 fruit a day < if u want to stay healthy
what you ought to do ,- on the assumption of some desire or goal
can be avoided by simply giving up the assumed desire or goal
e.g , dont want to see show - dont go to theater early --- e.g dont want to be healthy - then the imperative of eating 5 a day doesn't apply to me
an imperative is a command
two tests
contradiction in will
cannot rationally will it
it would be logically impossible to universalize the maim of not helping other people ever
kant argues that we cannot will that no one every helps anyone else - his test is whether we can rationally will that our maxim be a universal law
kant doesn't claim that an action is wrong because we wouldn't like the consequences if everyone did it
= arguments goes as follows
therefore , we cannot will a situation in which it would be impossible to us to achieve our ends
it is impossible that the only means to our ends is the helps of others
to truly will the ends , one must will the necessary means
we cannot therefore will that this situation is denied to us
as will by definition , wills its ends
therefore , we cannot will a situation in which one ever helps anyone else
to do so is to cease to will the necessary means to ones ends , which is effectively to cease to will any ends at all ,,, this contradicts the vary act of wiling
contradiction in contraception
e.g you want bring a gift to a party ,cant afford it so you steal it,-- maxim is ' to steal something i want if i cant afford it ' = only right thing to do if everyone could do it
however , if we all steal , the idea of owning disappears = you cant steal if everyone owns it ,,, but people can only own things if they dont go around taking things- logically impossible to for everyone to steal things = steal is wrong
the situation in which everyone acted on that maxim is somehow self contradictory
morality and reason
the tests show disobeying the categorical imperative involves a self contradiction
reason both determines what our duties are + gives us the means to discover them.
kant argued that its morally wrong to disobey the categorical imperative and it is also irrational
we intuitively think that morality applies to all and only rational beings , not just human beings
morality and rationality are categorical
the demands to be rational and moral dont stop apply to you even if you dont care about them--- Neither depend on what we want
we can explain the nature of morality in terms of the nature of reason.
morality is universal
categorical imperatives
what we ought to do,there are your duty regardless of what you want
kant has also argued that moral duties arent a means to some ends because what makes an action good is that is willed by the good will
' act only on that maxim throughout which you can at the same tine will it should become universal law '
all categorical imperatives (moral duties) - are derived from one = the categorical imperative :