Home > Sample essays > Understanding Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Exploring the First and Second Formulations

Essay: Understanding Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Exploring the First and Second Formulations

Essay details and download:

  • Subject area(s): Sample essays
  • Reading time: 10 minutes
  • Price: Free download
  • Published: 1 April 2019*
  • Last Modified: 23 July 2024
  • File format: Text
  • Words: 2,966 (approx)
  • Number of pages: 12 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 2,966 words.

Question 1, Part 1

As found in the book, the first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative says “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that become a universal law.” (Weston, p.138). To easier understand the concept of the first formulation, ask yourself “What is the maxim of my action?” meaning, what is the already set rule for the action I want to pursue? By putting it that way it is easier to comprehend what the first formulation says and relate to Kant and his way of thinking. An example of how someone would utilize Kant’s first formulation in life would be if you were going for a walk around your neighborhood and spot some kids selling lemonade down the block, you are very thirsty but you left your wallet at home because you did not think you were going to buy anything on your walk. This would be an example where you would ask yourself; What is the maxim of my action? You see that the kids left the lemonade stand unattended so you could easily grab a cup and chug it before anyone noticed or, you could walk back home to grab your wallet and come back to the lemonade stand. If you chose to go ahead and snag the cup from the stand you approve of the maxim of stealing which would universalize that action, meaning you are saying that it is okay to steal. Because you must not exclude yourself from any moral actions. However, the first formulation, as the book mentions, is essential “a test to see whether the rule you have in mind can be ethical” meaning, not every action could become a universal law simply because society could not function if it did. For example, if everyone kept stealing there would essentially at the end be nothing left to steal. The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative says “Always act so as to treat humanity, whether in yourself or in another, as an end and never merely as a means.” (Weston, p.139). What Kant means with this formulation is that you may not treat human beings as an object, because everyone exists for themselves and you must always acknowledge the different values and interests of persons. According to the article I found online, everything has either an instrumental value, used simply to help perform tasks, or an inherent value, like friendships. (Fieser). Human beings, according to Kant, have an inherent value and therefore we may not treat them as objects as mentioned earlier. The reason humans are considered to have an inherent value instead of an instrumental value is that, according to the article, “unlike animals, we (human beings) can rise about our brute instincts and to freely make crucial decisions in shaping our lives and the world around us.” (Fieser) and that is what makes human beings of inherent value.

Question 1, Part 2

Even though the formulations say different things they both results in the same moral requirements and end up having the same answers to the moral questions because we all, as human beings, are encouraged to include ourselves in the group that the book called “ethical decision-makers all thinking from a universal point of view – a kingdom in the sense of an ideal community.” (Weston, p.139). Meaning, Kant is saying that the universal thinking required to succeed is shown through the rational thinking that is referred to in the first formulation is the same as the humanity he referred to in the second formulation. And the book gives a good summarization of how the two formulations intertwine with each other, it says “We affirm each other’s personhood in the form of our shared embrace of a universal point of view.” (Weston, p.139). Meaning, at the end of the day with rational thinking and good moral values, every human being helps create a good and livable society, according to Kant.

Question 1, Part 3

We can take help of the Categorical Imperative to show everyone how every human ought to have equal rights by realizing that Kant makes sure that every individual is included by not excluding race, gender, age, sex, etc. when considering his formulations of the Categorical Imperative and since we are of inherent value, everyone lives for themselves and we may never see an individual human being treated as an object, but rather an equal. He wants everyone to be accounted for, including yourself, when considering his two formulations.

Question 2, Part 1

The utilitarian principle to consider for deciding moral questions are “The greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness, in society as a whole, as the ultimate moral standard.” (Weston, p. 565) What is meant by that, the Utilitarian principle focuses on seeking pleasure to avoid pain. So, when considering a utilitarian’s opinion, the action that should be performed in any given situation is the action that will produce the greater overall pleasure. Essentially helps you determine right from wrong by looking at the outcome. According to Jeremy Bentham, the good utilitarians should try to maximize is the greatest happiness principle. This principle states, that the right thing to do is whatever brings the most pleasure to the most individuals. To simplify, the main objective of utilitarianism is the scenario which results in the highest satisfaction is the way to go. John Stuart Mill makes it very clear in the text that individuals desire both lower and higher pleasures in life. He also makes it clear that an individual should not only desire lower pleasures because, as Mill described it, that would make you desire to live like an animal. For example, lower pleasures are your basic needs in life such as, eating and sleeping while your higher pleasures take more time and effort. Some of the higher pleasures in life are intellect and moral sentiments for example.

Question 2, Part 2

Utilitarian principle is to do whatever brings the most happiness to the majority of individuals, no matter age, gender, color, etc. and with a majority, there is always a minority. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the principle that focuses on how in any situation, you should always choose the action that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals while rule utilitarianism says that we generally should always choose the action that is most likely to lead to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of individuals. One example on how the act utilitarian principle would conflict with individual rights would be if a doctor had one patient who was brought in one night after drinking and driving and was in a very unstable condition but still had a slim chance of recovering, that same doctor also had 3 other patients in critical condition waiting for transplants. The doctor makes a utilitarian decision to unplug the drunk driver, even though he still had a chance to live, in order to be able to help the other three patients by getting them the organs they needed to survive. (example inspired from crash course). Now, the doctor decided on what would bring the most happiness to the most people by saving three individuals and killing one. His decision also killed an innocent man with the right to live, according to the Declaration of Independence and that is how utilitarianism might conflict with individual rights. If we would have had the same situation, but using rule utilitarianism instead, the outcome would have been different. The doctor would not have killed the innocent man because rule utilitarianism forces you to think more long-term and the doctor would realize that killing innocent people, even though severely injured but alive, for their organs will have less utility in future and the family of the patient would not have to fear that their loved one might get killed and harvested for organs.

Question 2, Part 3

Applying the Utilitarian principle to help us answer moral questions might not be the easiest thing to do at all times. Since the Utilitarian principle states that you must do whatever brings the most happiness to the majority of individuals, there is almost always going to be people left out who disagree. Two problems encountered when using the Utilitarian principle to solve problems would be disagreement and anger. For example, let’s say there is a bad winter blizzard outside, easy to picture since we live in the Midwest, and one single cable pole breaks and cuts the signal for everyone at home. The cable company gets a thousand calls complaining about the outage because the customers do not want to miss the bachelor season finale. The break in the pole would’ve been an easy fix if it were not for the weather conditions. The cable company decides to send one of their men up there because according to the Utilitarian principle, the right thing to do is to send the worker up the pole knowing he is risking serious injury is worth it because 2 million people will be very happy if they get to finish the bachelor episode. It is true, the cable company’s decision would bring the most happiness to the majority of individuals but some problems they might run in to could be anger and disagreement. People were happy to know that the television is back on, but they were not informed that a man’s life was risked for it to happen. If they were informed, maybe the people watching cared way more for the man’s safety rather than whom the bachelor proposed to and in that case the solution the company picked is not ideal anymore. Individuals might get very upset with the cable company and disagree with their decision to send an innocent man up in life-threatening conditions and act based on that anger when the cable company just followed the Utilitarian principle when making their decision.

Question 3, Part 1

The word function enables us to define flourishing and virtue by telling us that everything around us has a distinctive activity or function in order to be able to perform. For example, “Human artisans have their particular arts. This function or activity, in turn, determines admirable or “excellent” characteristics or traits – that is, virtues.” (Weston, p.217). Meaning that for everything that has a function, if the job is well done it will help build your characteristics and virtues. Eudaimonia is also helped to describe how function helps us define flourishing. Eudaimonia, as more thoroughly explain in the answer below, is Aristotle’s name for explaining “humanly-appropriate activity” (Weston, p.218). Eudaimonia allows us, as the essential human, to function and therefore help us determine moral behavior or flourishing characteristics that will turn in to moral virtues.

Question 3, Part 2

Eudaimonia is Aristotle’s conception of the human function and there is no really good and direct translation of the word itself, but one way used to describe the word is, human flourishing meaning, “effort to achieve self-actualization and fulfillment within the context of a larger community of individuals, each with the right to pursue his or her own such efforts.” (NLN). The word Eudaimonia means that you are never done improving yourself as an individual and you are constantly setting new goals for yourself and pushing yourself to always be the best person you could be even though it takes hard work and dedication. It is also important to know that Eudaimonia is not a state you can ever achieve and be done with, it is constant work and like everything that takes work, you are also going to face disappointments and struggles throughout. The happiness, in his special sense, comes from achieving new and old goals at all times, easy or difficult, rather than having individuals hand you stuff without you putting in the work to earn it

yourself. Eudaimonia is basically saying that all the work you put in towards yourself and your own goals will leave you to feel happiness. Aristotle believes if you live a life with Eudaimonia, you will live to do good things and be the best person you could be by always striving towards your goals.

Question 3, Part 3

Aristotle thinks of virtues as mean states between two extremes, on one end is deficiency and on the other is excess, the right action to take in any situation and he calls this the golden mean. Aristotle believes when you find a middle ground between the two extremes, you have achieved the goal of acting as morally and virtuous as you possibly could. For example, generousness. The deficiency of that would be stingy and the excess would be extravagant, then the golden mean would be generous. You would not want to come across as stingy because then people are going to think you are penny-pinching and greedy but on the opposite hand, you would not want to come across as extravagant either because then people might take advantage of your generousness. So, finding out the virtue in this case, generousness is crucial when it comes to understanding the golden mean. The reasoning behind his thoughts is that virtue is a way of life and it is best taught through experience rather than by books because every situation has a different golden mean and trying to read about every single one out there would keep you busy for a lifetime and you would also have learned about a lot of scenarios that might not even apply to you or your life. By experiencing it first-hand you get to interact with the different situations you personally run into and learn from that. Aristotle also believed that your moral behavior and virtuous characteristics start with how you are brought up as a child and by repeating virtuous actions to test the golden mean numerous times throughout your life the moral behaviors will grow to become a part of your personality and how you are portrayed as a person to individuals around you.

Question 4, Part 1

To figure out the differences between Libertarian ethics with ethics of care, you first have to have a good understanding of what each of them means. Libertarian ethics theory says that “Everyone has the right to live as they chose, compatibly with the same right of everyone else.” (Donaho, p.4). Meaning that libertarians believe that everyone has the freedom to live their own lives however they please, as long as he or she respect that every individual has that same right to freedom and should also be respected no matter how they chose to live their lives. They believe that everyone is better off by minding his or her own business and they do not like when someone or something interferes with their way of life, for example they oppose the government for things such as taxation, seat belt laws and drug regulations because the, don’t like to be told how to live their lives in a certain way. Ethics of care theory is all about “Putting special emphasis on personal and familial relationships such as those between intimate partners, parents, and children, friends and comrades.” (Weston, p 560). This theory is very centered around relationships and the moral importance of keeping and maintaining those relationships with your close ones, as well as the significance of the deep care you have for one another. That is how the two theories differ from each other, Libertarian ethics focuses more about taking care and worrying about yourself and everything and everyone will find a way to do the same, while ethics of care focuses on taking care of yourself, but an even bigger part of ethics of care is focusing on the well-being and interconnectedness with the people you love.

Question 4, Part 2

A Libertarian society would be more focused on individualism and every individual would stay for themselves, they would also prefer that the governments sole purpose would be protection, such as funding first responders and military, the rest of the responsibilities should be left in the hand of the individual citizens. As far as a society built on ethics of care, it would be focusing on inclusion and !!!!!. It would be very difficult for a Libertarian to live in a society where he or she is forced to the ethics of care way of life only, and vice versa.

Libertarians would definitely get rid of the mandatory seatbelt law because libertarians do not like being told how to live their lives and believes that if they wanted to choose not to use their seatbelt, the law should not stop them from doing so, but ethics of care would oppose and say that the law for wearing seatbelts when driving is there to protect us and our loved ones from getting hurt. To get an even better understanding of the way each ethic theory for example, a good career path for a libertarian would be economics because you analyze data using methods and technique and in that field, you are reliant on your research in order to make accurate predictions. and a good career path for a person with ethics of care would for example be, a nurse simply because giving care is in their ethical nature, they are caregivers, as the name suggests, so working as a nurse would be allow them to help and take care people as well as being a very fulfilling career.

Works Cited

Crash course. Retrieved July 19, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q

Donaho, S. Instructors notes, week 1

Fieser, J. (2017, October 1). The Categorical Imperative. Retrieved from https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm

NLN. (2014). Practical/Vocational Program Outcome: Human Flourishing. Retrieved July 19, 2018, from http://www.nln.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/human-flourishing-final.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Weston, A. (2018). A 21st century ethical toolbox (4th Edition ed.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Understanding Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Exploring the First and Second Formulations. Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sample-essays/2018-7-20-1532101969/> [Accessed 22-01-25].

These Sample essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on EssaySauce.com and/or Essay.uk.com at an earlier date than indicated.