INTRODUCTION

The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central

philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, it is a way of
evaluating motivations for action. It is best known in its original formulation: "Act
only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should
become a universal law."[1]
According to Kant, sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality
can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from
which all duties and obligations derive. He defines an imperative as any
proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. Hypothetical
imperatives apply to someone who wishes to attain certain ends. For example, "I
must drink something to quench my thirst" or "I must study to pass this exam." A
categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional
requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in
itself.
Kant expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the popular moral philosophy of his
day, believing that it could never surpass the level of hypothetical imperatives: a
utilitarian says that murder is wrong because it does not maximize good for those
involved, but this is irrelevant to people who are concerned only with maximizing
the positive outcome for themselves. Consequently, Kant argued, hypothetical
moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral
judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too
heavily on subjective considerations. He presented a deontological moral system,
based on the demands of the categorical imperative, as an alternative.
 KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE IN THE LIFE OF MODERN
DAYS MORAL LAW
The categorical imperative is a moral principle which denotes that you should “act
only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will
that it become a universal law”, meaning that you should act a certain way only if
you’re willing to have everyone else act the same way too.
For example, when it comes to relationships, the categorical imperative means that
you should avoid being rude to people, unless you want everyone to be rude to
each other.
Kant holds that the fundamental principle of our moral duties is a categorical
imperative. It is an imperative because it is a command addressed to agents who
could follow it but might not (e.g. , “Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.”). It is
categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we
possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not
have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have
antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves.
There are “oughts” other than our moral duties, according to Kant, but these oughts
are distinguished from the moral ought in being based on a quite different kind of
principle.
The Categorical Imperative is supposed to provide a way for us to evaluate moral
actions and to make moral judgments. It is not a command to perform specific
actions -- it does not say, "follow the 10 commandments", or "respect your elders".
It is essentially "empty" -- it is simply formal procedure by which to evaluate any
action about which might be morally relevant.
Since by nature (according to Kant) the moral law is universal and impartial and
rational, the categorical is a way of formulating the criteria by which any action
can pass the test of universality, impartiality, and rationality. That is its only
function.
It has several forms or expressions and you need to know the first two . Kant
believes that these two forms of the CI are, ultimately, equivalent, and that what
one forbids the other forbids also. I suppose you might say that they are two ways
of looking at the same "moral reality." How are these two forms related? How are
they equivalent? Well, they are equivalent because that which makes human beings
intrinsically valuable (this is the focus of the second expression of the CI) is reason
and freedom, and it is precisely the demands of rationality (which is the
precondition of freedom) that provide the criteria for evaluating moral actions in
the first expression of the CI. In other words, it is because other people have
(universal) reason and freedom that you should never treat them as merely means
to your own ends, and it is that rationality which provides the criterion for
evaluation found in the first expression of the CI.
Both forms of the CI are intended to be expressions of the common, ordinary moral
sense that we (most of us, anyway) have that there are some actions that are simply
wrong.
What is the relationship between the two forms of the Categorical Imperative?
An imperative is a command. "Close the door!" "Brush your teeth!" "Study hard!"
"Don't forget to button your shirt." According to Kant, however, these commands
are abbreviations.
 "Close the door, so that your father can hear the game."
 "Brush your teeth, so you don't get cavities."
 "Study hard, so you can get a good job, and give your poor parents some
peace."
 "Don't forget to button your shirt, so your date doesn't think you're an idiot."
They are "hypothetical imperatives" -- Kant means that the commands depend
upon the goals to be fulfilled. These are particular goals that depend upon personal
situations, particular human goals and desires and dispositions. Hypothetical
imperatives are commands that apply only in particular circumstances, for
particular people who happen to have these desires, these goals.
The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal because all
people, in virtue of being rational, would act in precisely the same way, and
impartial because their actions are not guided by their own biases, but because they
respect the dignity and autonomy of every human being and do not put their own
personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.
Notice that the above is NOT a description of how everybody does behave -- as an
ethical theory, it is concerned to describe how people ought to behave.
Kant is not condemning hypothetical imperatives. In fact, he agrees that these are
the sorts of imperatives that we live by are hypothetical in nature. But they are not
moral. (They are not immoral they are non-moral.)
REFERENCE
1. Paton, H. J. , 1947, The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral
Philosophy, London: Hutchinson’s University Library.
2. e.g. Pelegrinis, T. N. 1980. Kant's Conceptions of the Categorical
Imperative and the Will. p. 92.
3. Kant, Immanuel Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, footnote 12.
Cambridge University Press (28 April 1998). ISBN 978-0-521-62695-8
4. Azenabor, G.E. (2008). “The Golden Rule Principle in an African Ethics,
and Kant‟s Categorical Imperative a Comparative Study on the Foundation
of Morality”.