Kant's Moral Philosophy and Political Theory Explained

Types of Hypothetical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives are problematic (rules of skill) where the purpose for which the action is good is only possible—meaning it is not an end to which humans tend by nature, but one you may or may not desire. The mandate "you must train this afternoon" belongs to this type because it describes how to behave to achieve a specific goal, such as playing well in a football game.

Assertoric imperatives are hypothetical imperatives (rules of prudence or sagacity) where the order in question is real. This is an end that all humans tend to pursue by nature: happiness. The mandate "you must temper your passions and desires" belongs to this group because it describes how to behave to realize a purpose common to all humanity.

The Nature of Kantian Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives generally follow the structure: "You must do X if you want to achieve Y." Kant believed that ethics can be based on material or assertoric mandates, but never on strictly moral mandates or categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical imperatives (similar to synthetic a posteriori judgments) are particular and contingent:

• Rules of skill are not universal because not everyone shares the same purpose.
• Rules of prudence have a broader scope as they relate to happiness, yet they are not strictly universal or necessary because:
  • Happiness depends on the empirical circumstances of each individual.
  • Even if the definition of happiness were identical for everyone (e.g., a life of knowledge, as Aristotle assumed), the method to achieve it depends on varying social, economic, and political circumstances.

The Social Contract and Political Authority

The social contract allows individuals to leave the state of nature to enter civil society. It is not a historical fact, but a hypothesis that dictates how the State should be administered. The social contract implies the total submission of individuals to an authority—reflecting Kant's thoughts on Hobbes—but it also implies that the individual is a co-legislator. No law can be adopted without consent; therefore, the ruler must create laws as if they emanated from the general will, which aligns Kant's thought with Rousseau.

Legal Freedom and Self-Legislation

Legal freedom for Kant and Rousseau is a natural right belonging to every individual. Kant argues for positive political freedom, where each individual becomes a legislator and co-author of the State's laws. Here, Kant departs from Hobbes and adopts the concept of self-legislation found in Rousseau's "general will." The ruler must legislate as if the united will of the people consented to the laws.

The legal concept of freedom does not justify civil disobedience. Like Hobbes, Kant believed that submission to state power was a necessary condition for social order. To prevent the excesses of the ruling power, Kant relies on his defense of freedom of expression.