• Immanuel Kant: “The Categorical Imperative”.- | La …
  • The Golden Rule and Categorical Imperatives | rsweetjj
  • Problems with Kant’s Categorical Imperative | …

Problems with Kant’s Categorical Imperative | Thomistic …

Kant, “The Categorical Imperative” | vuemk


Kant Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives
Photo provided by Flickr
About three minutes into the conversation I had an epiphany that you can solve the Prisoners Dilemma with the Categorical Imperative, even in a purely rationalist perspective, and even in a non-repeated game!

17/10/2011 · The categorical imperative, ..

The Golden Rule and Categorical Imperatives
Photo provided by Flickr
This is not the right idea, for it violates something that should be basic to Kantian ethics, the difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives, i.e.


The categorical imperative is one concept in itself however it ..

Jan 18, 2014 · ♠Immanuel Kant: “The Categorical Imperative”: For Kant the basis for a Theory of the Good lies in the intention or the will
Photo provided by Flickr
About three minutes into the conversation I had an epiphany that you can solve the Prisoners Dilemma with the Categorical Imperative, even in a purely rationalist perspective, and even in a non-repeated game!

29/09/2015 · What is the difference between the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative
Photo provided by Flickr
Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized moral duties towardourselves as well as toward others. Hence, together with thedistinction between perfect and imperfect duties, Kant recognized fourcategories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect dutiestoward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect dutiestoward others. Kant uses four examples in the Groundwork, oneof each kind of duty, to demonstrate that every kind of duty can bederived from the CI, and hence to bolster his case that the CI isindeed the fundamental principle of morality. To refrain from suicideis a perfect duty toward oneself; to refrain from making promises youhave no intention of keeping is a perfect duty toward others; todevelop one’s talents is an imperfect duty toward oneself; andto contribute to the happiness of others is an imperfect duty towardothers. Again, Kant’s interpreters differ over exactly how toreconstruct the derivation of these duties. We will briefly sketch oneway of doing so for the perfect duty to others to refrain from lyingpromises and the imperfect duty to ourselves to develop talents.

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

As it turns out, the only (non-moral) end that we will, as a matter ofnatural necessity, is our own happiness. Any imperative that appliedto us because we will our own happiness would thus be anassertoric imperative. Rationality, Kant thinks, can issue noimperative if the end is indeterminate, and happiness is anindeterminate end. Although we can say for the most part that if oneis to be happy, one should save for the future, take care ofone’s health and nourish one’s relationships, these failto be genuine commands in the strictest sense and so are instead mere“counsels.” Some people are happy without these, andwhether you could be happy without them is, although doubtful, an openquestion.

KANTIAN ETHICS - Sacramento State

Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is acategorical imperative. It is an imperativebecause it is a command addressed to agents who could follow it butmight not (e.g. , “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”). Itis categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally,or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference toany ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words,apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted somegoal for ourselves.

Immanuel Kant (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Finally, Kant’s examples come on the heels of defending theposition that rationality requires conformity to hypotheticalimperatives. Thus, we should assume that, necessarily, rational agentswill the necessary and available means to any ends that they will. Andonce we add this to the assumptions that we must will our ownhappiness as an end, and that developed talents are necessary means toachieving that end, it follows that we cannot rationally will that aworld come about in which it is a law that no one ever develops any oftheir natural talents. We cannot do so, because our own happiness isthe very end contained in the maxim of giving ourselves over topleasure rather than self-development. Since we will the necessary andavailable means to our ends, we are rationally committed to willingthat everyone sometime develop his or her talents. So since we cannotwill as a universal law of nature that no one ever develop any talents— given that it is inconsistent with what we now see that werationally will — we are forbidden from adopting the maxim ofrefusing to develop any of our own.