KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE Modern deontological ethics was introduced by Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century, with

his theory of the Categorical Imperative. Immanuel Kant defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given circumstance (e.g. if I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something). A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. He argued that the "highest good" must be both intrinsically good (good "in itself"), and good without qualification (when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse). He concluded that there is only one thing that is truly good: a good will chosen out of a feeling of moral duty. From this concept of duty, Kant derived what he called a categorical imperative, a principle that is intrinsically valid (good in and of itself), and that must be obeyed in all situations and circumstances if our behavior is to observe moral laws. He considered it an unconditional obligation, regardless of our will or desires, and regardless of any consequences which might arise from the action. He also believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value and therefore meaningless. Kant developed his moral philosophy in three works: "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" (1785), "Critique of Practical Reason" (1788) and "Metaphysics of Morals" (1797), and he formulated it in three different ways : Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. This means at least two things: If you aren't willing for the ethical rule you claim to be following to be applied equally to everyone - including you - then that rule is not a valid moral rule. I can't claim that something is a valid moral rule and make an exception to it for myself and my family and friends. If the ethical rule you claim to be following cannot logically be made a universal rule, then it is not a valid moral rule. Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means. This means that should always be treated as valuable - as an end in themselves - and should not just be used in order to achieve something else. They should not be tricked, manipulated or bullied into doing things. This special moral status or intrinsic value implies that humans ought never to be valued as less significant than things that have merely instrumental value. Things of instrumental value are mere tools, and though they can be traded off with one another, they can never be more important than intrinsically valuable things. Significantly, all technology is in some sense a mere tool; no matter how many resources our society pours into technologies, the moral status of humans is supposed to trump the value of mere tools. Kant doesn't want to say that people can't be used at all; it may be fine to use a person as long as they are also being treated as an end in themselves. Act as though you were a law-making member (and also the king) of a hypothetical "kingdom of ends", and therefore only in such a way that would harmonize with such a kingdom if those laws were binding on all others. Created by: Roby Renz R. Tongol AC81