Kant's Categorical Imperative and the Foundations of Formal Ethics

Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: Imperatives and Duty

This commentary discusses a fragment of Chapter 2 of Kant's Metaphysics of Morals. The text exposes the difference between the hypothetical and categorical imperatives and affirms the latter as the maxim that must become the standard for all men.

The text can be divided into two parts, consistent with Kant's formal ethics. The first part covers the initial paragraphs (concerning the nature of the imperative) and the second part (the third paragraph) expressly states the categorical imperative.

The Distinction Between Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives

When analyzing the first part, we deduce that an imperative is simply a principle that commands. However, for Kant, this command need not be hypothetical—that is, one that prescribes an action as good because such action is necessary to achieve some extrinsic purpose (the basis of material ethics).

In contrast, the categorical imperative declares the action objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any extrinsic purpose. This leads us to the second section, which states that the categorical imperative is a universal mandate and necessary action perceived as unconditionally good, regardless of what specific goal might be achieved.

Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Kant offers several formulations of the categorical imperative. The first formulation, often called the Formula of Universal Law, states that one must act according to a maxim:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

This means the imperative makes no specific rule, but rather dictates the form that the rules determining individual behavior must take to become the universal norm for all.

Humanity as an End in Itself

The second major formulation, the Formula of Humanity, requires:

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means."

Only man, as a rational being, is an end in himself and should not be used merely instrumentally. Therefore, what one chooses to do should not respond to subjective causes, but to objective reasons that must be valid for any rational being.

Duty and the Standard of Morality

Hence, formal ethics is limited to pointing out how we must act. We are the ones who must fill the content vacuum. The only standard of morality is understood as a duty to act according to the law, out of respect for it.

Kant identifies three types of actions:

1. Actions against duty.
2. Actions in accordance with duty (but motivated by inclination).
3. Actions from duty (obligation).

Only the latter action is morally good because one does not act for any purpose or inclination, but solely out of duty for duty's sake. The moral value lies neither in the end nor in the means, but in the maxim (the principle) that determines the action.

Characteristics of Kantian Formal Ethics

This outlines Kant's formal ethics, which strictly opposes material ethics:

• It must be strictly universal and rational (a priori), not empirical.
• It relies on absolute or categorical imperatives, not hypothetical ones.
• It is autonomous, meaning the subject is determined to act by giving the law to himself.

In conclusion, compared with material ethics, Kant proposes a formal ethics that differs in two key respects: it provides no specific goods or order to be pursued by human beings, and therefore does not tell us what to do, but rather how we should act.