Hypothetical imperatives take the conditional form of "If you want to achieve goal X, you must perform act A." Hypothetical imperatives are not universal or absolute, because they are necessarily conditioned on some goal or desire. For example, if you wish to remain healthy, then you should not eat spoiled food. Thus, a hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself, but as a means to an end; whether it is in force as a command depends on whether the end it helps attain is desired (or required). Where as the opposite of a hypothetical imperative is the categorical imperative, which is unconditional and an end in itself. The difference between Hypothetical and Categorical imperatives is that in Kant’s moral philosophy, the Categorical imperative defines the difference between morally valid and morally invalid principles of reasoning about action. Where as the Hypothetical imperative, is dependent on the interest in a certain outcome.
From studying the Categorical imperative presented by Kant I have been able to see that Kant’s views on immorality occurs when the Categorical imperative is not followed: when a person attempts to set a different standard for themselves then for the rest of humanity. Once Kant has derived his categorical imperative he applies it to a number of examples. The second example is that of an unfaithful promise. Kant applies his imperative to a person who is short of money who intends to ask for a loan, promising to repay it, but with no intention of doing so. When Kant applies the categorical imperative to this situation he discovers that it leads to a contradiction, for if breaking promises were to become universal then no person would ever agree to a promise and promises would disappear. Kant connects rationality with morality, and sees contradictory behaviour as immoral. Throuh this you could argue that Kant never asserts the connection between rationality and morality, but you can also dismiss this and point out that Kant clearly explains how morality must be based upon reason and not upon desires.
Kant also argued that the categorical imperative that allows one to determine what actually is moral is known as a priori, and can only be properly determined through reason, meaning that you don’t obtain morals through observations, but by only reason. This to me is both good and bad, as I believe that to obtain good substantial morals you have to reason quite a bit in your thinking, but I also believe to branch out further and to see the bigger picture you need to obtain morals through observation and by experienceing and observing situtation so that you can can determine your own decision. I think if you don’t consider obtaining morals through both observation and reasoning, you are therefore in most cases unlikely to recognise what is right and wrong.
The categorical imperative sometimes seems to give false negatives in terms of what is permitted behaviour. For example, I cannot will that everyone in the world should eat in my favourite restaurant. Perhaps this sort of problem can be avoided by being careful in the use of relative terms like my. In this case, it is possible to will that everyone should eat in their favourite restaurant. This and other information has helped me to determine that Kant does not in my opinion fulfill a sufficient catagorical imperative on what’s right or wrong, as I believe that Kant’s views on distinguishing between right and wrong is incorect through my way of thinking, I recognise and understand Kant’s idea’s, but I disagree that there should be a principle of distuinguishing between right and wrong through Kant’s Catagorical imperatives, as I see his catagorical imperatives as not influenceing my decision on what is right or wrong, but instead confusing me greatly and deludeing my view.
