Charlene Lionel, 2019

Introduction
The persuasion of customary religion that morality is judged by consequences was greatly

detested by 18th century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He believed that morality

should be judged by on intentions or motives, and is based on reason (Weeks, 2014). Hence,

he introduced the categorical imperative in 1785 through his Groundwork of the Metaphysics

of Morals. The categorical imperative is the fundamental philosophy concept in the

deontological ethics (Orend, 2006).

According to Kant & Ellington (1994), the categorical imperative is expressed as “Act

only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a

universal law”. The four main forms of the categorical imperative are the universal moral

law, treat peoples as ends, autonomy, and kingdom of ends. However, Kant only focused his

time on the first two as the last two consisted of fundamental principles from the first two.

1|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

The Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential German philosopher in the history of Western

Philosophy (Christians, Fackler, Richardson, Kreshel, & Woods, 2017). Being raised in a

religious family, he knew how much religion gave his parents ‘the ability to handle hardships

thrown at them, and how valuable it could be in promoting social unity and community’

("Immanuel Kant," 2016). He also noted that morality was decided by penalties as stated by

Weeks (2014). Thus, greatly opposing the hypothetical imperative, that is actions made based

on objectives that needs to be achieved (Pecorino, 2002).

Kant believed that we have an ethical accountability to be honest. Instead of linking

this to the usual fragment of human nature like every other philosopher, he developed an

absolute rational code that tells us exactly whether a precise action is right or wrong which is

known as the categorical imperative (Fieser, 2017). Kant & Ellington (1994) states that the

categorical imperative is conveyed as “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at

the same time, will that it should become a universal law”.

The maxim here is defined as subjective principle of action, that is a part of a

mediator thought process for every rational action ("Maxim," 2018). O'Neill (1986) also

states that ‘The maxim of the act is the principle on which one sees oneself as acting.’ This

means that a maxim showcases one’s policy, or if one has no established policy, the value of

the primarily precise aim or choice on which one act.

The categorical imperative gives a direction to assess moral actions and make moral

judgements. It is universal, everyone would act in the same way, and impartial, an action is

made based of respecting the autonomy and dignity of another person over one’s self.

2|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

Formula 1: The Universal Moral Law

As stated by (Kant & Ellington, 1994) “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can,

at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” is the first formulation which

also closely connects to formulation of law of nature, that is “Act as if the maxims of your

action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”. The difference between

the two is that the formulation of law of nature considers if one’s maxim could function as a

law of nature, and if it is free from contradiction. To put it differently, the universal moral

law checks the essential code of one’s decision and if one wants it universalised (Christians et

al., 2017)

Fieser (2017) used gravity to explain this formula. Presuming he states that gravity

will make the rock in his right hand fall but the rock in his left hand will float mid-air, one

would say this is impossible as the law of nature cannot be changeable like this. Thus, this

formula directs us to look for contradiction within a universalised maxim.

The example used by Kant to explain this formula are promises. If one breaks a

promise because of one’s own interest, but if everyone broke promises out of their own

convenience then promises will not have any more meaning. So when one says ‘I promise to

do this and that’, yet on the other hand it has been universalised that practice of keeping

promises would be non-existent.

Formula 2: Treat Peoples As Ends

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of

any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end”, is the

second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative as identified by Kant & Ellington

(1994). To simplify the statement, people should not be treated as objects but with inherent

3|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

dignity and value. It assists in understanding Kant’s point of instrumental value and innate

value.

Fieser (2017) pointed out that instrumental value is when something is used as an

instrument to acquire something else. He used car keys to explain this. Fieser’s car keys are

valuable to him, and when he loses them, his life comes to a stop. His car keys are valuable as

a tool to perform task, which is to start-up his car. He also brought up the fact that his car was

also instrumental as it brought him from one place to another. Fieser (2017) also goes on to

say that innate value is the complete opposite as one is appreciated for what they are, and not

what they allow someone else to do. He goes on to explain that the examples of innate values

are companionship and satisfaction of good music are these are not thought of as instruments

for further benefits, but instead appreciate them for what they are.

Fieser (2017) goes on to highlight that Kant strongly believed that humans have

inherent value and should never be treated as instruments we have the capability overcome

our instincts, and make vital choices in influencing our lives and the world around us. Kant

also pointed out that humans has the freedom to make choices out of human reason, which

reinstates the fact that we have an inherent dignity that is valuable in and of itself. Hence, we

have the ethical accountability to treat a person in methods that mirrors their inherent value,

and not lessen a person to an ordinary item of instrumental value. To put it straightforwardly,

when a person is treated as an ‘end’, their inherent value is respected, but when a person is

treated as a ‘means’, they are only viewed as an instrumental value.

Formula 3: Autonomy

The first two formulations are what Kant focused most on his time on, and are famous of the

four. The last two, however, are induced from the fundamental principles of the first and

second formulations. Kant & Ellington (1994) states that Kant’s third formulation is

4|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

autonomy, that is “So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal

law through its maxims.” Fieser (2017) explained this by stating that one ought to

contemplate if their intentional maxims are worthy of one’s position as shapers of the world

when one acts. Hence, this formula brings to light on ability that lays on a person’s

determination to efficiently shape the world around them.

Formula 4: Kingdom of Ends

“So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends” is

the fourth formulation of the categorical imperative as stated by Kant & Ellington (1994).

The ethical destiny of society hangs collectively is the point brought forward by Fieser (2017)

on the fourth formulation. He also stated that Kant thought of human beings as ‘ends in

themselves’, thus, together we are a ‘kingdom of ends’, or an ethical society. This means that

a person should consider if his or her actions contributes to or weakens the ethical society.

Fieser (2017) also puts this candidly as one should ponder ‘whether the intended maxim of

my action could productively function as a universal rule in the moral community’.

5|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

Conclusion

To sum up, the categorical imperative is intended to change one’s angle: to encourage one to

look at their behaviour from a less direct individual viewpoint, and acknowledge its

boundaries. Kant accepted that society can act ethically from a ‘sense of duty’ even if their

personality might lead them to act otherwise (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014). The four

formulations of the categorical imperatives are the universal moral law, treat peoples as ends,

autonomy and kingdom of ends.

In my opinion, we can still apply the categorical imperative in today’s society. Using

the second formulation, for example, we should not treat another person as ends. It has been

increasing common that one uses another person just to get what they need in the 21 st century.

Even though this formulation came out in the 18 th century, it is still applicable in today’s

society. For example, to put this in a business context, a business will go all the way to make

extra profits even if it means to break the law. A very common occurrence can be seen when

businesses would rather throw rubbish illegally instead of obtaining proper document through

propose channels that’ll cost time and money.

6|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

References

Christians, C. G., Fackler, M., Richardson, K., Kreshel, P., & Woods, R. H. (2017). Media

Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, CourseSmart eTextbook. London, England:

Routledge.

Fieser, J. (2017, January 10). The Categorical Imperative. Retrieved from

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm

Immanuel Kant. (2016, April 6). Retrieved from

https://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/immanuel-kant/

Kant, I., & Ellington, J. W. (1994). Ethical Philosophy: The Complete Texts of Grounding

for the Metaphysics of Morals, and Metaphysical Principles of Virtue, Part II of The

Metaphysics of Morals, with On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic

Concerns. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Maxim. (2018, June 6). Retrieved from

https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199541430.001.0001/a

cref-9780199541430-e-1966?rskey=oC1MVT&result=1961

McCormick, M. (n.d.). Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics. Retrieved July 20, 2019, from

https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/

O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kant. Retrieved from

http://people.morrisville.edu/~galuskwj/oneill.html

Orend, B. (2006). War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. Waterloo: Wilfrid

Laurier Univ. Press.

Patterson, P., & Wilkins, L. (2014). Media Ethics: Issues & Cases (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill

Humanities Social.

7|Page
Charlene Lionel, 2019

Pecorino, P. A. (2002). MEDICAL ETHICS ONLINE TEXTBOOK text. Retrieved from

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/MEDICAL_ETHICS_TEXT/ind

ex.html

Weeks, M. (2014). Philosophy in Minutes: 200 Key Concepts Explained in an Instant.

Quercus Publishing.

8|Page