Kant is famous, among others, for trying to put morality onto a rational footing.

Today, Kantian ethics is, alongside utilitarianism, one of the two most prominent ethical frameworks.

But Kant's rigid application of the Categorical Imperative has not aged so well.

When obeying those moral laws that we could consistently and rationally will as universal laws, we are following the so-called Categorical Imperative, which might be re-stated as, “Always act such that the maxim of your action can at the same time be upheld as a universal law.”

This is similar to the much older Golden Rule of the Bible and the Indian Mahabharata, according to which we should treat others as we would wish to be treated. But whereas the Golden Rule is based on personal desire, which is subjective (I might, for example, be a masochist or be willing to tolerate some mistreatment), the Categorical Imperative is based on reason, which is objective.

Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives are practical rules for achieving a desired outcome, for example, “If you want to lose weight, you should watch what you eat.” If you do not desire a particular outcome, you do not need to follow the rules. In this much, hypothetical imperatives are conditional and contingent. In contrast, Categorical Imperatives are universal moral commands that bind everyone regardless of their aims, for example, “Do not lie,” “Do not steal,” “Do not commit suicide.”

Hypothetical imperatives answer to the lower faculty of desire, which aims at pleasure. Categorical Imperatives answer to the higher faculty of will, which functions rationally and autonomously by following the laws which it legislates for itself, regardless of consequences or personal feelings.

For Kant, true moral actions must be motivated by duty, not some desired outcome. Thus, Kantian........

© Psychology Today