PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE

Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj

IMMANUEL KANT AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
Case: Which one would you choose?
A group of children were playing near the railway tracks, one still in use while the other disused. Only one child
played on the disused track; the rest on the operational track. The train came, and you were just beside the track
interchange. You could make the train change its course to the disused track and save most of the lives. However,
that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track would be sacrificed. Or would you rather let the
train go its way?
The inclination in this case is to save more children (utilitarianism). Supposing the lone child was your child (a
further complication).
Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative
Two readings to be concerned with:
1. pp153-169 (the most difficult reading in this course)
2. pp 171-182: read alongside with the excerpt of Kant’s essay
Other sources:
1. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
2. Kant, Critique of Practical Reason
These are two of the most important textbooks in philosophy especially Modern philosophy.
One of the reasons Kant comes up with the Categorical Imperative is to go against utilitarianism. Kant also thinks
the Categorical Imperative is to go against our impulses, inclination, tendencies under the universal law because he
knew that we would make decisions with [our impulses]. The use of tendencies is clearly subjectivism/relativism.
Kant says “Now when I say that man, and in general every rational being, exists, as an end in himself, not merely as
means for arbitrary use by this or that will; he must in all his actions, whether they are directed to himself or to other
rational beings.”
General Context of Kant’s Moral Philosophy
 What can I know? (cf. epistemology)  knowledge, i.e. conditions of possibility of experiences and knowledge
 What ought I to do? (moral question)
Good will
Duty
The Categorical Imperative and its Formulations
Limits of the Categorical Imperative
 What may I hope for? (philosophy of religion) – I hope that there is a God otherwise nothing makes sense

About Immanuel Kant

 Born in Konigsberg, East Prussia (now Kaliningrad in the former Soviet Union) on April 23, 1724, the fourth of
nine children. He was a Pietist, a Protestant denomination with very strict views.
 Attended the University of Konigsberg; he was appointed an instructor of the university. There he taught an
astonishing variety of courses, including mathematics, geography, anthropology, the natural sciences,
metaphysics, logic, natural theology, ethics, and pedagogy.
 When he was 57, he published the first edition of his monumental Critique of Pure Reason, a work that would
irrevocably change the future of Western philosophy. (It is supposed to be a Copernican revolution of sorts. After
Kant, no one can think [within philosophy] without referring to Kant.)
 Kant remained a bachelor all his life. He died in Konigsberg on February 12, 1804.
General Context for Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Problem:
 The new science developed by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes and others viewed the universe as one big
machine governed by precise physical laws that can be discovered by observation and experiment.
 Freedom and responsibility disappear from this picture of the world – and with them morality. Such a world has
no meaning, no purpose, no intrinsic value; it simply is.
Experiences
Final Causality  WILL (no meaning for scientists) Causality

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 1 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Solution:
 Kant did not want to oppose this new science; but he did want to defend belief in morality (and religion).

 To be able to do this, he will have to show that theoretical or scientific knowledge has limitations that prevent it
from reaching all of reality. In other words, scientific knowledge leaves room for and does not undermine
morality.
Kant’s aim is then to rehabilitate morality. But to do this, he first had to analyze knowledge, to explain how we
come to know the world and what counts as such knowledge. Only then would he be in a position to show the limits
of knowledge.

Limits of
knowledge
HOPE

Limits of Morality
Our presentation of Kant’s thinking on morality will be guided by the following three questions:
1. What can we know? [Kant had to analyze knowledge first.]
2. What ought I to do?
3. What may I hope for?
What can I know?
Kant’s main contention … is that man as reason, as unity of consciousness, as the “I think,” is not so much
he who is subjected to some object as he who constitutes the subjective condition which makes possible the
object of experience. Thus, the Kantian subject is one that “legislates,” sets the rules and boundaries for the
emergence of the object. This, in general, is what is meant by Kant’s “transcendental” method.
(Sullivan, 1989:55)
I am subjected / controlled / conformed to a tree (Aristotelian and Thomistic).
“I” constitutes: I give measure but not so much a measure as a sense manifold. Prior to this sense manifold
meeting me, there is no tree (Kantian).
Unity of consciousness
not subjected to some object …
… constitutes the subjective conditions that make possible the object of experience } Key terms to
understanding

The human being contributes something. The thing out there contributes something. The relation gives a tree.
Transcendental Deductive Method
This is Kant’s attempt
 To ask what the conditions of possibility of experience and knowledge are  Kant goes back to the
conditions that make possible a tree.
 To uncover the limit-boundaries of what we could possibly know

Space and Time

+
sense manifold
 Concepts (Forms) of
understanding and experience  tree

Space and time is the way we constitute experience. According to Kant, space and time are not out there but in here
(within). Space usually is conceived of as a container. For Kant, space is where we order objects. For example, we
cannot think of a piece of chalk without space but we can think of a space without a piece of chalk.
Space and time will be the conditions of possibility. Without space and time, it is not possible to experience a table
or anything else. Space and time are a priori (before experience) Forms. They cannot be part of experience because
they are what make possible experience. Space and time are a priori Forms because they make possible the
conditions for experience. The unity of consciousness is the subject. The subject “provides” space and time.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 2 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj

a priori

tree sense manifold

phenomenon (as it appears) noumenon (as it is in itself)
subject
What can I know? The tree as it appears (not the sense manifold). I cannot know anything about the noumena but
what I can know is phenomena. An important question here: Can I know God? According to this, no. Therefore,
Kant believed in God but cannot know God (agnostic). Hence, you can also believe in freedom but not know it.
(Compare with St. Thomas who says that we cannot know God directly but through the effects.)
Implications for what we can know
If space and time are merely ways in which the mind orders things (i.e. categories), then things can only be known
by human beings as they appear, that is, under the conditions of space and time (a priori Forms of sensibility), and
never as they are in themselves.
According to Kant, science is limited to phenomena. Science cannot talk about morality and religion. The fact is that
not all reality can be [reclaimed]. The Forms are our way of constituting reality (not in another world as in Plato).
Kant's famous distinction between –
phenomena: things as they appear (in space and time)
noumena: things as they are in themselves
According to Kant, all we can know are phenomena; this is the limit of what we can know. Beyond the phenomenal
world (i.e. the noumenal), there can be no knowledge.
Summary / Conclusion
1. “Knowledge,” properly so called, is partly based on sense experience and is partly not so based. Knowledge
is always composite, i.e., we may identify empirical elements and a priori elements. The latter are
contributions of the knower.
2. The limit of what we can know then is the limit of what is there in sensuous experience that we can apply
our a priori forms to.
“Concepts without sense experience are empty; sense experience(s) without concepts are blind.”
“All our knowledge begins with experience, but not all our knowledge arises out of experience.”
Transition: Knowledge is limited to what we can experience in space and time. But there are “things” we do not
experience empirically – like the “ought” in moral imperatives. Through his excursion into the
possibility of knowledge, Kant has shown that there is room for matters of moral and religious
significance.
Review
Science refers to a mechanistic world. Science and morality do not exclude each other.
Knowledge is a co-operative endeavor between subject and object in which both mind and experience (respectively)
make a contribution. Knowledge is not mind/reason alone – else there is no content, nothing to be known.
Mind (a priori Forms) SPACE and TIME
To know
Sense manifold (experience) (universal and necessary conditions)
According to Kant, all we can know are the phenomena; this is the limit of what we can know. Beyond the
phenomenal world, there can be no (noumenal) knowledge.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 3 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj

What ought I to do? (pp 153 ff)

This question makes sense from the previous question. This is the morality part of Kant’s philosophy.
Kant’s task
 To seek out and establish the supreme principle of morality and so to be in a position to justify and defend, not
every individual moral judgment, but the principle in accordance with which such judgments can be truly made.
Compare with Aristotle: virtues  norms, methods  particular situations.
Kant was not interested in Aristotle’s schema but he wants to go beyond all the particularities and go to the
(universal) principle of morality. Kant’s principle of morality seeks to justify virtues, natural law.
 The task is the isolation of the a priori and so unchanging elements of morality. It is true that there are different
moral schemes in different societies, but we ask:
(a) What is it that makes these schemes moral?
(b) What form [i.e. what mold] must a precept have if it is to be recognized as a moral precept?
 To develop a “proof by reason” (a priori) that will work for moral laws. He wants to prove the basic moral laws
not by experience or observation but by reason a priori, i.e. by pure reason alone. Pure reason gives you results
that are absolutely true and cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone, everywhere, and all the time. And this sort
of absolute truth, Kant thinks, is very desirable indeed.
Kant does not go against the existentialists.
“Since my aim here is directed strictly to moral philosophy, I limit my proposed question to this point only – Do we
not think it a matter of the utmost necessity to work out for once a pure moral philosophy completely cleansed of
everything that can only be empirical and appropriate to anthropology?” – Kant
“Kant calls pure reason by the name ‘reason a priori’. What he means by this is a reason that can prove things prior
to experiencing them. This is a method not of observation but of intellectual proof …. The thing about pure reason is
that it gives us results that are absolutely true. The statement that 82 + 45 = 127, for example, is absolutely true and
cannot be doubted. It is true for everyone, everywhere, and all the time. And this sort of absolute truth, Kant thinks,
is very desirable indeed.” – Velasquez
Aristotle’s ethics is not based on pure reason because the Doctrine of the Mean has to into account of the situation.
The Natural Law is also not pure reason because you need to know the inclinations. For Kant, you base everything
on pure reason (reason a priori).
For Kant, “never run through a red light” means that in any situation. What makes this right is the law itself. Kant is
saying reason is the source that makes it right.
Objection raised against Kant: what if you know somebody is going to kill your friend. For Kant, telling the truth
comes from a principle. For him, if you make exceptions to telling the truth, you will eventually not know how to
tell the truth. (For a further response, refer to positive and negative duties.)
Chapter I (pp 154 ff)
“The Good Will”
“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.”
Use of Transcendental Deductive Method
Conditions of possibility of experience  will (not just my will but)  good will (Intelligence is good in itself but it
is not what morality is about. Intelligence or knowledge can be used for evil means.)
To clarify Kant’s assertion about the good will we ought to pay attention to “without qualification”:
1. A good will alone can be good in itself, or can be an absolute or unconditioned good. That is – it is a good
will alone which is good in whatever context it may be found.
2. Its goodness is not conditioned by its relation to a context or an end or a desire. It is good on the basis of
itself and nothing else.
Therefore, the only possible basis for a pure ethics is the good will because it is always good, or is good in every
circumstance and situation. And so it is the good will that Kant will use as the basis of his ethical theory.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 4 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj

What makes a person have a “good will”? (pg 155, paragraph 2)

 When we act, we always act to accomplish something; every action has some goal or other. But we do not
consider people to be morally wanting when, despite their best efforts, they fail to achieve their goal. Instead –
“morally good [will] is … intrinsically good, that is, good in itself, just for what it is and not good merely insofar
as it is effective in achieving something further.
 Against Utilitarianism:
An act is not right or wrong because people are happy or not. If the will acted from moral duty, then it acted
rightly, even if its action makes me, or other people, very unhappy. We must do our moral duty even if the whole
world perishes.
The function of reason (pg 155)
Note: No ethics can survive without reason. In Aristotle, reason helps us determine the Mean (virtue). In the Natural
Law, reason promulgates precepts. Reason seeks the eternal law through the tendencies / inclinations.
For Kant,
“Since … reason has been imparted to us as a practical power – that is, as one which is to have influence on the will
… its true function must be to produce a will which is good, not as a means to some further end, but in itself; and for
this function reason was absolutely necessary in a world where nature, in distributing her aptitudes, has everywhere
else gone to work in a purposive manner.” (pg 156)
“... Reason, which recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of a good will, in attaining this end
is capable only of its own peculiar kind of contentment--contentment in fulfilling a purpose which in turn is
determined by reason alone, even if this fulfillment should often involve interference with the purposes of
inclination.”
Reason is not supposed to bring us to happiness but to a moral life.
What makes the good will good is the performance of DUTY (pg 156, “The good will and duty” and “The motive of
duty”)
Kant explains what duty is by saying what duty is not.
 Duty is an action recognized by an agent as inconsistent or contradictory with duty (however useful it may be). In
other words, duty is not what is useful, contrary to duty, e.g. telling a lie to get something better, going for a
developmental course as a student [useful but not your duty – Kantian] and foregoing an exam [Kant says your
duty as a student is to take exams].
Kant says there is no hierarchy of duties1; there can only be one duty. Our tendency is to claim that something is
useful but it is not our duty. If you know your duty, it can never be your duty if you do something else, no matter
how useful or inclined towards it.
Kant is saying that not everything that is useful is contrary to duty. Kant is trying to control our desires here.
 An action conforming to duty and to which we have no direct inclination, but to which we are driven by some
other inclination (self-interest) is not a duty. (This does not have moral worth for Kant).
 A more difficult case would be that in which duty and direct inclination point in the same direction.
(For Kant, if you do it because it is your duty, this has no moral worth. Cf. the Pharisees giving from their excess
while the widow’s mite is because she is giving from her lack – both are good but the issue is the moral worth.)
“It is much more difficult to observe the distinction where an action conforms to duty and the subject besides has
an immediate inclination to it.”
Kant wants to distinguish two different ways of acting. The first we might call “outward agreement with duty.”
Here the action does do what duty requires. But the motive behind the action was not duty itself, but some other
inclinations. The second way of acting is acting from duty. Here the action not only does what duty requires, but
the motive behind the action is duty as well.
And what Kant wants to argue, here, is that it is only this second way of acting – only acting from duty – that has
true moral worth. Moral worth has to do with the act in itself (i.e. from duty). Is an act of moral worth always good?
Yes but we are after whether an act has moral worth or not.
1
For Kant, having a hierarchy of duties means you cannot make up your mind.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 5 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
For Kant, there can only be one duty at any one time (only one duty in a simultaneous “presentation” / conflict
between two or more duties).
Kant will distinguish between hypothetical duty and categorical duty –
Hypothetical duty: Based on role (you can “throw” these away)
Categorical duty: e.g. you cannot stop being a human
Kant will emphasize on ethics of doing over ethics of being. Kant’s ethics is deontological. Kant is very firm about
no change in duty  depend on the Categorical Imperative, universal law. Kant is an Absolutist only to the extent
that he insists on keeping [to the forms and principles].
It could also be where my happiness is lies my duty. Happiness for Kant is only an effect, not the primary
consideration.
Good will
a priori ethics ≡ pure ethics
Maybe we can discover pure ethics in the good will. (Kant is doing a phenomenology here – a description of where
people are in.) Only the good will will be good absolutely  good will is good because it listens to reason.
Knowing: Doing science
Reason: Doing morality } Two different faculties in the mind for Kant

The function of reason is to produce a good will  this is where duty comes in.
In the New Orleans (Hurricane Katrina), it is okay to steal according to Aristotle and the Natural Law because of
survival. Not so for Kant. You cannot consider survival as a duty and then everything else falls in place because
stealing, no matter how useful, is contrary to duty (cf. pg 157, paragraph 2).
Different examples of Kant: last paragraph of pg 156 to pg 157
It is possible and more difficult to determine when duty and direct inclination point toward the same direction.
Pg 158, paragraph 2
For Kant, loving your parents (whom you love) is an inclination, not a duty. However, loving your parents who
make you (truly) miserable is a duty. That is why the Scriptures command us to love our enemies (duty) and not
[just] our friends (inclination).
To do your duty is never to sacrifice. We should be happy doing our duty. To sacrifice is not to do a duty.
Inclination and obligation can coincide. Who knows you are doing things from duty? Yourself.
Pg 158
 Kant wants to distinguish between two different ways of acting. The first we might call “outward agreement with
duty.” Here the action does do what duty requires. But the motive behind the action was not duty itself, but some
other inclinations.
 The second way of acting is acting from duty. Here the action does not only require what duty requires, but the
motive behind the action is duty as well. What Kant wants to argue, here, is that it is only this second way of
acting – only acting from duty – that has true moral worth.
It is that duty which can become a universal law.
First Proposition: That act has moral content which is performed not in conformity with duty from the motive
of duty.
Second Proposition: An action done from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in
the maxim in accordance with which it is decided upon; it depends therefore, not on the
realization of the object of the action, but solely on the principle of volition in accordance
with which, irrespective of all objects of the faculty of desire, the action has been performed.
Pure ethics  good will  reason
Duty  maxim (subjective principle – my reason for doing something)
Principle of the will (principle of volition)
Objective principle (universal and necessary)

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 6 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
“Maxim”2: When you are contemplating doing a particular action, you are to ask what rule you would be
following if you were to do that action. This will be the maxim of the act. The maxim is thus the
subjective principle in the Categorical Imperative. This is the rule of action a person follows as part of
his own policy of living.
Note: Not all subjective principles can be the maxim.
What Kant is saying is that morality does not depend so much on what we do or on whether we are successful.
Rather, morality depends on our doing things in a principled way. It is not what we do, but how (on the basis of the
principles) we do it. Or to put it a little differently, whatever our purposes might be, the important thing is to pursue
those purposes in a way that stays constantly in touch with the principles of duty.
(Velasquez, 199)
(In the present political situation, Cory Aquino is stressing on the principles while GMA is stressing on results.)
Third Proposition: Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.
Since dutifulness abstracts from any ends we may desire, it requires us to comply with the moral law out of respect
for it, regardless of any desires we have and regardless of anything further we may or may nor achieve.
(Sullivan, 1996:32)
Therefore Kant says law is very forceful because it exacts/demands the duty.
The Categorical Imperative
But what kind of law can this be the thought of which, even without regard to the results expected from it, has to
determine the will if this is to be called good absolutely and without qualification?
(Kant is now arguing his argument forward.)
Since I have robbed the will of every inducement that might arise for it as a consequence of obeying any particular
law, nothing is left but the conformity of actions to universal law as such, and this alone must serve the will as its
principle. That is to say I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become
a universal law. Here bare conformity to universal law as such (without having as its base any law prescribing
particular actions) is what 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.
What will induce me to obey the law? Only the law itself (not punishment nor rewards). The maxim must therefore
become objective (universal and therefore necessary  comes from a priori reason). If I can will my maxim such
that others can also “use” it, then it becomes duty.
For example, somebody is in such dire need for money that I ought to lend money. Why do people hesitate? The
reason you are lending money is because you know that person will pay you back.
There is something more sacred than the duty of a soldier or a doctor: the duty of being a human.
Kant is not exactly saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” [– the Golden Rule]. Rather, he is
saying something like “Do unto others as you would have everyone do unto everyone.” For it is this “everyone unto
everyone” that would result from making my maxim into a universal law.
Pure ethics  good will  reason
Duty  MAXIM (subjective)  LAW (CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE)

What is an imperative? (pg 160, paragraph 2)

The conception of an objective principle so far as this principle is necessitating for a will is called a command
(of reason), and the formula of this command is called an imperative.
“Necessitating for a will” ═►there is nothing for the will to do but obey.

2
Another word for maxim is rule.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 7 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Kinds of Imperatives:
Imperatives of skill: Include the necessary measure or means a person must take up to the extent that he
chooses to pursue an end or goal.
Imperatives of prudence3: Refer to the necessary measures or means that a person out of tact and practicality,
must take up if he wants to attain happiness, a goal which all men as a matter of fact
seek by natural inclination.
Hypothetical Imperative: (problematic) Just because the means are commanded by the end we want to attain are
(If … then) conditioned / demanded by the same end. The demand loses its sense if and when we
choose no longer to pursue the end we desire.
The hypothetical imperative includes the imperatives of skill and of prudence.
Categorical Imperative: There is an imperative which, without being based on, and conditioned by, any further
purpose to be attained by a certain line of conduct, enjoins this conduct immediately.
This imperative is categorical. It is concerned, not with the matter of the action and its
presumed results, but with its form and with the principles from which it follows; and
what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the
consequences be what they may be. This imperative may be called the imperative of
morality.
There are no ifs in the Categorical Imperative: it commands immediately.
Imperatives Hypothetical Skills
Prudence
Categorical
Why does Kant talk about imperatives – hypothetical or categorical – at all? In other words, why focus on
categorical imperatives?
Imperatives: formula for command of reason. Function of reason: basis of knowing one’s duty which goes back to
the good will.
Hypothetical  Conditional (If … then formula – not possible in pure ethics)
Conditioned by what I want to do (means to achieve the good)
Categorical  No ifs (Do this. Period.)
Not concerned with the matter (this is what changes)
Formulations of the Categorical Imperative are the forms (these do not change)
There are several formulations
What is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may be.
How are imperatives possible?
In this task we wish first to enquire whether perhaps the mere concept of a categorical imperative may not also
provide us with the formula containing the only proposition that can be categorical imperative.
When I conceive a hypothetical imperative in general, I do not know beforehand what it will contain--until its
condition is given. But if I conceive a categorical imperative, I know at once what it contains. For since besides the
law this imperative contains only the necessity that our maxim should conform to this law, while the law, as we have
seen, contains no condition to limit it, there remains nothing over to which the maxim has to conform except the
universality of a law as such; and it is this conformity alone that the imperative properly asserts to be necessary.
Formulations of the Categorical Imperative (pg 163 ff)
In the end, the formulations of the Categorical Imperative are necessarily universal and necessary. This is similar to
formulae in mathematics (which are the forms) and what changes is the matter (the content).
Note: There is only one Categorical Imperative with different formulations.
NOTE: MEMORISE ALL THE FORMULATIONS

3
Cf. Aristotle

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 8 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
1. First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: The Formula of the Universal Law
Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.
See Kant’s second example. What is the right thing to do?  Duty?  “principle” – can I rationally will?
In the end, the promise is made without fulfilling promise  promise will not be fulfilled  everybody’s action.
There is a practical contradiction in reason (which can never be accepted by reason). Another example: not
developing your talents.
If you can will it to universal law, then it is a duty. Lying is a rational contradiction.
(1.1) This formulation of the principle of morality summarizes a procedure for deciding whether an act is morally
permissible, i.e., whether or not an act contemplated upon is being done for sake of duty.
As a matter of policy, “Do not steal,” “Obey your parents” (like a fence which you use to demarcate)
(1.2) “Maxim”: the subjective principle in the categorical imperative. This is the rule of action a person follows as
part of his own policy of living.
(1.3) Universal Law: Then you are to ask whether you would be willing for that rule to be followed by everyone
all the time. That would make it a universal law.
(1.4) Conclusion: To act or not to act: If so, the rule may be followed, and the act is permissible. However, if you
would not be willing for everyone to follow the rule, then you may not follow it, and the act is morally
impermissible.
(You do not count heads, i.e. not by a majority, but any rational person who looks at it will agree.)
Kant is not concerned with the consequences of the law. Once you make decisions based on consequences this leads
to utilitarianism. Your duty is to think about a command first to make sure that the command is a command of
reason. (Hannah Arendt follows Kant in saying that soldiers cannot say they are obeying orders to kill innocent lives
because the basis is our humanity.)
Further clarifications
1. This is helpful for checking out whether I feel like or want to do (argument against arbitrariness). I am
doing simply because I feel like it (arbitrary) or whether I have a good reason for doing it. What Kant
neglects to see is that we are not courageous (cf. Aristotle) enough to do something that is our duty. Kant is
not heartless; all he wants to have is a policy. We can therefore fire an employee with good reasons.
2. Sometimes it is not even possible to conceive (think) of having everyone act on a certain reason, much less
be willing to have everyone act on that reason because to act in such a way would be self-defeating.
Self-defeating test: When embarking on a certain course of action, I must ask: Does the universalizing of the
principle of my action result in a contradiction? If so, the action fails the test and must be
rejected as immoral. Contradictions here are not a logical contradiction as often as a practical
one.
A completely rational agent acts only on maxims that are both self-consistent and consistent with one another. To
test maxims of conduct, then, we need to ask, Is this a maxim that a purely rational agent can adopt? Or
alternatively, could this maxim function as a law for a community of rational agents legislating not only for
themselves but for all other such agents as well? (Sullivan, 36)
Negative duties: Specify what is morally forbidden and require us to limit our pursuit of happiness by the demand
of morality. Negative duties are also called narrow, strict, rigorous and perfect, for any action
violating them is morally wrong.
e.g. we may never violate the respect owed another person, regardless of the reason we may have
for wanting to do so.
Positive duties: Rather than requiring us to perform any actions, the Categorical Imperative directs us only to
adopt general maxims, or policies. Beyond that, it is indeterminate in the sense of not specifying
what we must do to fulfill them, or when or how.
e.g. Duty to tell the truth – allows us a good deal of discretion and prudence in deciding when

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 9 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
and to whom to tell the truth, as long as we do not violate the constraint against lying.
When there is a conflict between negative duties and positive duties, we must attend to the negative duties first. Yet,
positive duties still obligate me absolutely.
Case
To use the car-pool lanes during rush hour, we must have at least one passenger in the car. To avoid the clogged
roadways when driving my child to an event, I sometimes pay another child 5 or 10 dollars to ride with us so I can
use the car-pool lane on the return trip, saving me 30 to 75 minutes. Is this ethical?
Utilitarianism will say yes but Kant will say no because any attempt to circumvent the law is also immoral.
Example: “Do not use condoms” – This is a negative duty: it is difficult to argue with the Church because of the way
it is expressed.
For Kant, a person’s action has “moral worth” only to the degree that it is motivated by a “sense of duty,” that is, a
belief that it is the right way for all people to behave. Duty becomes “our duty,” not just “my duty.” In other words,
the Categorical Imperative – with its criteria of universalisability and reversibility of reason – is one’s duty to
perform.
2. Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself (pg 166)
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
Kant makes a difference between means and ends. Use means  purpose, ends  everybody’s ends (Kant still goes
back to Aristotle here). The end, in the end, is the human person.
(2.1) Kant says “never simply as a means” not “never as a means.” In everyday life, we constantly do and must
treat others as means. But Kant insists that in treating others as means we must also have regard for their
rights and interests. Hence – “but always at the same time as an end.”
(2.2) Why treat human beings as an end?
Human beings have intrinsic and absolute value, worthwhile just for what it is. They are the beings for
whom mere “things” have value and they are the beings whose conscientious actions have moral worth. So
Kant concludes that their value must be absolute, and not comparable to the value of anything else.
(2.3) What does it mean to treat the other as an “end” always?
To treat people as ends is “to treat people as beings who have ends.” That is, I should not treat human beings
as mere means to my own ends, because I recognize that they themselves have ends of their own. And they
have ends, because they are free, rational and autonomous agents; they can act in accordance with purposes
and principles, they are persons, not things.

That is why the expression “Everyone has her price” denigrates a person so viciously. What the second formula
stipulates is that we may not regard or treat others or allow ourselves to be treated only as instrumentally valuable,
merely as means to satisfy someone’s desires, merely as a source of pleasure. We may never renounce our right to
respect, and we ought never to act so as to reduce ourselves or others to the status of mere things. Persons demand
respect just by being persons, and that means not acting on a rule that treats any person merely as a thing.
(Sullivan, 69)
Pg 166 (last paragraph) to the top of pg 167
Kant is making a distinction here between things/objects and human beings. The value of objects come from outside,
not from within, i.e. comes from my inclinations. Existentialist philosophers will point out that this is correct, e.g. a
piece of chalk will not protest against its use. Only a human being can protest against being used as a thing.
To be subject means to be free, to be rational … (all of which are not found in things). By the very nature of human
beings as subject, they are already ends in themselves  this for Kant means not to be treated as an object or a
means but always as ends in themselves.
We cannot avoid treating other humans as means but Kant reminds us that we are also to treat humans as ends (they
can react to our reactions).

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 10 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Would Kant approve of prostitutes? “Even in your own persons” implies that you have no right to treat yourself as a
means. Similarly, he would not approve of suicide because you are treating yourself as a means and not as an end in
yourself.
3. Third Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: The Law of Autonomy
Act always on that maxim of such a will in us as can be at the same time look upon itself as making
universal law.
(3.1) This formulation focuses on the fact that it is every individual who legislates. Recall
First formulation: The rational human being decrees that his maxim become a universal law. Law is
legislated for everyone.
Second formulation: The rational human being is an end in himself because he is rational, and to be
treated as one is itself a demand of his rationality.
In both formulations – as rational will – the human being himself legislates the universal law. Hence,
Third Formulation: Law is legislated by everyone [and for everyone]. In obeying the moral law, an
individual obeys a law which he recognizes.
There can be no conflict between the first and third formulations. Kant is very fond of covering all the angles.
(3.2) Morality, therefore, only demands what the human being ought to demand to himself/herself and of others as
rational will.

Overview of the Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

There is one Categorical Imperative and there are different formulations (some philosophers say there are five but
we will do three in this course).
1. Formula of the Universal Law
This focuses on the FORM (prescribe – “empty” of content)
FORM
2. Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself
This is the formulation dealing with means and ends: subjective (Matter to the Form). This is equivalent to
Kant’s understanding of rights and justice.
↑
FORM ← MATTER
↓
When we act, we act in order to pursue happiness, but sometimes they conflict with the prescription to respect
people all the time (i.e. can do anything EXCEPT degrade the person)
3. Formula of the Law of Autonomy
↑
FORM ← MATTER
↓

autonomous law
Each one does come up with the universal law and therefore Law of Autonomy.
In general, as long as you understand the Categorical Imperative as fencing in what we can or are allowed to do (i.e.
within space and time), [that is the basic/minimum view of what it entails].
Once it is done by reason, what is rational for one is rational for all even if I was the only one making the statement.
(Kant was probably very appreciative of mathematics; cf. 1+1=2 is not just for me but for everyone).
The Categorical Imperative is the criteria of universability4 and reversibility5 of reason.

4
When I say “universal,” then whatever applies to others should also apply to me and vice versa.
5
That is, reverted back to me.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 11 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Kant would say you can justify capital punishment (something that Fr Nemy, sj does not agree with). The reason for
killing the criminal as a means [is not right], but the criminal himself deemed it right to kill and therefore we respect
the criminal by killing him. Note that this is Kant’s view.
The kind of deliberation involved here concludes not in action but in practical policies or principles, not in specific
judgments in how to act here and not, but in policies to adopt for our lives, e.g. it is right to respect others all the
time (as a matter of policy).
Therefore, many ethics look to Kantian policies (and some also to Aristotle). When you use the Categorical
Imperative, you must not translate it into a specific judgment.
Application of the Categorical Imperative
“Be Honest” is an example of a policy but it does not tell me how to be honest in any situation. Unfortunately, we
always make decisions within situation. Kant does not go beyond policies (cf. conscience in Natural law).
When you come into a situation, it becomes more specific. The problem for Kant is that the universality is less
specific; it becomes less and less specific.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative has guided you through the process: as long as what you do is within the four fences,
you are fine.
Examples:
You are in dire need of money but you will not be able to pay back the money to your friend. Telling a lie would be
contradictory (against the First Formulation) and using the other simply as a means (against the Second
Formulation).
What would Kant say you do or adopt as a policy? Tell the truth that you cannot pay back the money and therefore
respect the rationality and reason of your friend. At least you are telling him the truth (passing the buck to him as it
were).
Can we treat children as rational beings? Yes, you can, according to Kant. This is because they have the potency to
be rational beings. For Kant, when somebody is incapable of using reason (it is not inability to use reason) but not in
the way I am capable of reasoning. Fr Nemy suggests we should still treat them as rational beings through their
guardians.
It is your duty to prevent somebody from murdering another person. Suicide is not a rational thing for Kant (treating
yourself simply as a means).
The point of the universal law:
1. it applies to everyone (First Formulation)
2. it applies to me (Third Formulation)
Limits of the Categorical Imperative
(The general objection against Kant’s Categorical Imperative – arising from a misunderstanding – is that the
Categorical Imperative is very impractical.)
 As a principle governing the universality and hence absoluteness of moral rules, it does not seem to be plausible.
It says, after all, that moral rules (imperatives of duty), without exceptions, hold in all circumstances.
 The Categorical Imperative is untenable, implausible in the light of conflict cases. This is true especially with
regard to choice between two goods!
 Kant was actually pre-occupied with the crucial conflicts that occur between duty and inclination.
 In the case of a conflict between two positive duties, we might simply fulfill each of them at different times.
 In the case of a conflict between a narrow obligation [i.e. negative duties] and a wide one [i.e. positive duties],
“perhaps we might fulfill the narrow obligation and simply look to fulfill the wide duty in another way at another
time.”
Recall the positive duties and the negative duties (see earlier).
Positive duties: how, where, when (there is room for Aristotle here). If there is a conflict between “Be honest” and
“respect”, go for respect first (easier said than done).

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 12 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Morality is based on reason, and reason cannot impose practical contradictions…. Therefore, Kant argued that, even
when there is a conflict between moral rules, at any given moment we can have only one duty. A genuine conflict
between duties, a conflict such that we have a duty to try to act at the same time on incompatible rules, cannot arise.
‘Two conflicting rules cannot both be necessary at the same time,’ he wrote; ‘if it is our duty to act according to one
of these rules, then to act according to the opposite one is not our duty and is even contrary to our duty.’ Therefore,
he continued, it is not correct to say either that our duties can admit of exceptions or that one duty can be more
pressing or more obligatory than another; all moral obligations are absolute.
(Sullivan, 100)
We have seen how Kant likened the laws of the moral world to the laws of the natural world: they both hold
universally and without exception. When a bird takes wing, its flight is not an exception to the law of gravity; that
law still holds. The bird’s flight is possible because other natural laws override the law of gravity by giving “lift” to
the bird’s wings. Similarly, in the case of conflicting rules, following the one with the stronger ground does not
constitute following an exception to the other, which still obligates us but is overridden on this occasion.
(Sullivan, 101)
So how does one resolve such conflicts? The stronger ground of obligation should prevail. “Since it is a requirement
of reason that we not be simultaneously bound by two conflicting duties, then, in Kant’s theory, once we
conscientiously decide where our duty lies, the other rule is regarded as not actually obligating us here and now”
(Sullivan, 104)
Case: What do women really want? (adapted)
Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. He was to be
executed but the monarch gave him a year to find the answer to an important question. If he was not able to find an
answer by that time, he will be executed. The question was “What does a woman really want in her life?”
So Arthur began asking around to find out the answer to this question. He asked the princesses, the prostitutes, his
wise men, his ministers and his knights. But none of them was really able to give him an answer. On the last day
before the year was up, he was persuaded to go to the old witch. She was not really an option that most people
would like to consider as she was known for her exorbitant prices.
When he went to her, she wanted him to promise that he would marry her to Gawain, one of her noble knights.
Arthur was horrified and refused to agree, preferring to be executed than for Gawain to marry a hideous, ugly old
witch. When Gawain heard about this, he persuaded Arthur to agree to her conditions and let her marry him. She
told him the answer to the question is that a woman wants to be in charge of her life. Arthur’s life was spared by the
monarch.
On the wedding day, everybody was horrified at the presence of the old witch. She did her worst but Gawain, kind
and courteous as ever, treated her with the utmost respect. When Gawain went to the bedroom, he was surprised to
find, in place of the hideous, ugly old hag, the most beautiful lady he had ever seen in his life. He asked her what the
reason was. She answered that since he had treated her with much kindness, courtesy and respect, she would be a
hideous old witch for half of each day and be a beautiful lady for the other half of the day.
Gawain was then asked by the witch. Would you prefer me to be beautiful in the day and admired by people but
become a hideous witch by night? Or would you prefer me to be a hideous ugly witch in the day and a beautiful lady
at night to spend intimate moments with? How would you decide?
The answer to this is to let the witch decide since a woman wants to be in charge of her life  treat her as an end in
herself, not just a means.
What I ought to do?
“Good Will” “The function of reason” What makes the good will good is
the performance of DUTY.
The Categorical Imperative: ( this is a priori)
1. First Formulation: Formula of the Universal Law
2. Second Formulation: Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself
3. Third Formulation: Law of Autonomy
If we do what we ought to do, for what may then Hope?

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 13 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Granting that I do what I ought to do, what is there to hope for? Why hope? If you follow the way Kant reasons out
the Categorical Imperative, [there is something to hope for]. Even deontological ethics must eventually be
teleological. Granting that I do what I ought to do as a moral being in this empirical world as I know it, what is there
to hope for?

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 14 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj

What can I know? What I ought to do?

Phenomenal realm (science) Noumenal realm
Action is here in phenomenon
but still influenced by noumenon
The underlying assumption behind the question is that, viewed from the viewpoint of Kant’s system, man finds
himself in a dichotomous world. On the one hand, I know a phenomenal world of space and time, governed by the
deterministic laws of nature, and by the laws opposing social forces, human inclinations, ambitions, passions.
On the other hand, morality binds me, by a Categorical Imperative, by an absolute obligation, to live by the moral
law based on a noumenal ideal world of community of persons who constitute a kingdom [a community] of ends in
themselves.
How can we unite these two realms? This is the question of hope.
Hope
Hence, the world we live in is a DUAL WORLD, a world wherein the morally innocent are often victims of the play
of brute physical forces and wherein the just do not necessarily get what is due them materially. In spite of all that,
granting that I live and act by the moral law as commanded by the Categorical Imperative in this empirical world
governed by physical laws and determinisms, is there hope for some ULTIMATE UNITY that would make sense of
this broken, dual world?
(Ramon Reyes)
What may I hope for?
The question seems to come down to the question of how and what are the conditions under which the whole
empirical world might accord itself with the ends and ideals of the moral world.
The principle of the solution to the problem lies in the moral imperative itself, for it alone provides us in all of
human experience with something that is absolutely necessary, though only in a moral sense.
If everybody follows the Categorical Imperative, then everybody will be treating each other as ends. Therefore it is
possible to have a kingdom of ends – a demand of reason (but only if everybody follows the Categorical
Imperative). (This kingdom of ends is equivalent to Kant’s heaven.)
 The same moral law that commands us categorically to act dutifully also identifies the ultimate kingdom of ends
as the consequence of dutiful actions.
 The existence of that kingdom is required by moral reason. It would be self-contradictory for our reason to
command us to strive toward what is not possible; were it to do so, all the moral commands of reason would be
thrown into doubt. We therefore must believe that the kingdom will come to pass.
Why is the kingdom of ends a demand of reason?
Hope, according to Kant, still has a basis: reason. The light we are hoping for already has its effect on the now. It is
possible because it is based on reason. As long as we are alive, there is hope. If it is all kingdom of ends, you must
say goodbye to the phenomenal realm. As long as we are in the phenomenal world, we still care.
 But – the demands of justice are often not served in this world; acting conscientiously does not guarantee that we
will be happy. Moreover, even if we ourselves obey the moral law, we cannot count on everybody doing so.
In the end, it is really about BELIEVE. It makes sense to hope, believe because of [reason].
We must also believe in Immortality (also arising from reason) and that God exists (for the Kingdom of Ends to
make sense). These are a priori demands of reason. This is Kant’s philosophy of religion.
In the context of science at Kant’s time, everything is mechanistic and therefore there is no room for morality 
What can I know?  limitations of knowledge – everything in space and time. Kant has opened a window to
morality (what I ought to do)  What can I hope for?  faith.
These are the three important categories of Kant: knowledge, morality and faith.

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 15 of 16

PH104: FOUNDATIONS OF MORAL VALUE
Notes from the lectures of Fr Nemy S. Que, sj
Kingdom of Ends
Every rational being must act as if by his maxims he were at all times a legislative member of the universal kingdom
of ends.
Kant challenges us to ask what sort of moral world we should aim to create and also commands us to strive to
realize it. That world should be a community of persons all acting autonomously, all holding one another in mutual
respect.
Thus Kant ultimately is led to the fundamental question: the Source and Lord of all – but as a hope that makes sense
of our experience of the demands of morality in a world that "appears" mechanistic.
Unless I necessarily hope in personal immortality and the existence of a Supreme Being, I will never make any
sense of my experience. And unless there is freedom, our experience of the categorical imperative remains without
ground and source – since experience makes it appear that everything is "mechanistically" determined.
These are necessary implications demanded by our absolute, categorical moral imperative.
We must not only hope. We must also act as if through our actions we are bringing about a kingdom of ends.
Through this action we can bring about the unity of our dual, broken world.
Closing Question
Do you find Kant’s ethics compelling? If so, why do you find Kant’s ethics compelling?

Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative Page 16 of 16