- Information
- AI Chat
QUESTIONS-ANSWER
Philosophy & Persons (PHIL130)
Loyola University Chicago
Recommended for you
Preview text
PHIL 130: Philosophy & Persons (Irwin) Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, Ch. 2 (selections) Reading & Discussion Questions 1) What is the difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical imperative? Why are only the laws of morality unconditional? Why does Kant think we can immediately know the content of the Categorical Imperative? Imperatives are instructions. They tell us what to do. Kant differentiate between these two types of imperative: Hypothetical and categorical. In one hand, Hypothetical tells you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal. For example, if you do not want to go to prison, do not steal wallets. It only apply to people who want to attain the goal which they refer. In the other hand, Categorical imperatives, show us what to do irrespective of our destiny. For example, don’t steal a car! People should not steal wallets whether we want to stay out of prison or not. The author considered the Categorical imperatives as an objective, reasonably unconditional principle that we have to track notwithstanding any natural wish. All specific moral necessities are defensible by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are unconditional because they violate the Categorical imperatives. Kant claims that the categorical imperative is a “synthetic a priori proposition” which means that we can know the categorical imperative self-sufficiently of experience or any sensory observations. 2) Why does Kant think rational beings are ends in themselves? How do we tell who (or what) is an end in itself? How does his account differ from a utilitarian one? The author said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself. If a person end in itself means their intrinsic value doesn’t depend on anything else. It does not depend on whether the person is enjoying life or making other people’s lives better. We exist, so we have a value. For this reason, we should not treat ourselves as a means to our own ends. In its place, we should respect our intrinsic worth and value and this is why it differs from a utilitarian view. Because its main idea is the value of oneself rather than make life better by increasing the amount of good things. 3) In our selection, Kant provides two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative. Are they equivalent to each other? Why or why not? How would it affect his argument if the formulations were not equivalent? The categorical imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral actions and to make moral judgments. Kant gives two forms of the CT: First, Behave in such a way that a reasonable generalization of your action to a universal rule will lead to a benefit to a generic person under this universal rule. Second, Always treat others as ends and not means. Kant claims that the first one is equivalent to the second one. Imagine there were a group of people who enjoyed to be ends. Assume these people, based on specific situations, would like to be treated as objects such as a microwave. They appreciate being microwaves and warm things such as food. They like the experience. Based on these circumstances, knowing that you might want to be a microwave at some point, would it be fine to treat these people as means and not ends? Is there an exact or detailed sense in which one and two are equivalent, as they appear totally dissimilar, at least for me. Maybe the answer is that by recognizing the desire to be means, not ends, you are treating the people as ends, not means. However, then it is hard to truly identify when you are acting good based to imperative number two. To sum up, I believe that formulation number two is the ethical perception, insight or understanding people are comfortable with and the entitlement that formulation number two is equivalent to formulation number one is unsupported.
QUESTIONS-ANSWER
Course: Philosophy & Persons (PHIL130)
University: Loyola University Chicago
