Immanuel Kant The Categorical Imperative Review Questions: 1. Explain Kants account of the good will.

According to Immanuel Kant, it is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. All the skills or talents that we have from God are without doubt good and desirable in many respects. But these gifts can be extremely bad or hurtful when the will is not good. This is the reason why we have the term character.

2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.

Hypothetical imperatives can only be applied to people who have goals in life and want them to achieve it. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, tell us what to do apart from our desires.

3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self and others. According to Kant, the first formulation is: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. He explained that the conformity of universal law serves the will as its principle, and must so serve it if duty is not to be everywhere an empty delusion and a chimerical concept. 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end), and explain it. According to Kant, the second version is: "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 to an end."

Discussion Questions: 1. Are two versions of categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your view. In my opinion, they are two different rules because the first one is saying that our actions are considered as universal law while the second one tells us that we should understand every being in this world. 2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexample. Yes, I agree with what Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. One of the best examples that I can think of is when he made a promise to him, then it is his duty to do what he promised. It is not right for him not to do what he promised. 3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify non-moral or immoral actions. Is this a good criticism?

Yes, I agree that categorical imperative can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral actions and this is a good criticism.