The problem with authentic examples is that according to Kant “There is therefore only a single categorical imperative, and it is this: act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. But Kant clearly does not distinguish between ethics and meta-ethics (principles for selecting ...

2016年11月8日 · Since the Categorical Imperative tests the form of the maxim, i.e. whether it has the form of a law (which is both general [allgemein] and universal), all we test here is the logical coherence of thinking this maxim as actually universal among rational wills. The (mis-)understanding of this kind of contradiction has been the source of both the ...

2019年6月28日 · According to him, there are 3 formulations of the categorical imperative, and Kantianism is based on obeying those 3 formulations of the CI, regardless of the consequences. I will go through the first and second formulations and how those clash with utilitarianism, and leave out the rest of Kant's philosophy because it's simply too much to put ...

I'm taking a two year course on philosophy and ethics. At the moment, we're studying Kantian ethics. I understand Kant's theory of "act by a maxim that you would want universalized" and the three steps to see whether a maxim can become a categorical imperative, such as universalization, seeing humans as an ends mean and kingdom of means.

"Is there a constructive way to conclude whether someone is being treated as "merely" a means?" Generally speaking (beyond well known contexts of coercion and manipulation), no. Kant's ethics suffers from circularity known as the problem of relevant descriptions: one can give descriptions of the same action, and if we could tell which description is "right" we wouldn't need Kant's ethics.

To expand on my comment above: Since all actions can, because of how the very concept of morality is thought, only be moral if the will is governed by the categorical imperative, it follows that if the will is not governed by the categorical imperative, the action is immoral: A(m)→W(ci), therefore not(W(ci)) → not(A(m)) (A=action, m=moral ...

I'm struggling to understand Kant's categorical imperative. Kant call behaviour which is in accordance with the categorical imperative moral and the rest is immoral according to him. Okay. I get that. So.. what is it act according to categorical imperative? It is to be logical.

The imperative directs somebody to the universal moral system. The GR keeps her within her individual feelings, desires, fears, perceptions, stereotypes. GR looks as something general but it is empty - these are its applications that matter, and they are mostly subjective.

The result of adopting this principle is much stronger, since the result is that the set of actions endorsed by the categorical imperative will end up empty. On Sartre's view, it's not just that the categorical imperative will end up leaving some right actions out. Rather, the categorical imperative is incapable of determining action at all.

As I see it; there are two forms of the Categorical imperative. 1. A categorical imperative contained within a hypothetical imperative. In chess; It is categorically imperative that Pawns never move backwards. To do so would violate the rules of chess. The hypothetical imperative is whether you want to play by the rules of chess in the first ...