Kant on Imperatives and Universal Law

Kant begins by telling us that there are three imperatives that we must be aware of. The imperatives are techincal (belonging to the art), pragmatic (belonging to welfare), and moral (belonging to free conduct as such, i.e., to morals).(26-7) He then poses the question of how these imperatives are possible. To answer the question, Kant begins to describe the relationship between the wills to the end and the means or actions that allow us to arrive at this end. This theory is described as being analytic, as the logic concerning the means and the end is a linear process. We initiate the actions or the will to accomplish a specific end, knowing that the "proposed result can come about only by means of such an action..."(27) Therefore, the course of action involving the means and the end, Kant concludes, is analytic because the end is acquired through the means. Here, I agree with Kant because we have situations where this is true. For example, if Michael Phelps wants to be the best swimmer in the world, he knows that he must spend 12 hours in the pool each day to achieve the highest level of swimming. Phelps desires an end (greatest swimmer), therefore he desires the means to that end (swimming 12 hours per day).



On the other hand, there are no precise imperatives that we can use to determine the concept of happiness. In this case, it is similar to the case above in that "whoever wills the end also wills the sole means thereto which are in his power."(27) In simpler words, to desire an end is to also desire the means which will accomplish that end. In order to obtain or achieve happiness, we must be willing to do things which will give us the feeling of happiness. Happiness changes from person to person, having no definitive substance. Kant states that this is true because happiness is unexceptionally emipirical. We find happiness through the experiences that we have gone through in the past, which decides what we choose to do in order to experience happiness. He goes on to say that no specific imperative can make one person happy. I agree with the fact that one imperative cannot make a person happy, since one imperative will sacrifice health or happiness of another imperative. For example, if I decide to eat a chocolate cake, that will achieved by the pragmatic imperative, which will deal with improving my welfare or happiness by fulfilling my desire to eat the cake. At the same time, this imperative will be contradicting the pragmatic imperative because of the extremely detrimental effect it will have on my health, which is directly correlated to my welfare and well being.



The moral imperative is the most difficult because there is no action or imperative that can show there is a moral imperative present. The moral imperative would not be present in this case if there was anarchy and no law. Moral imperative is present because we know the actions will lead to a desired end, along with the punishment that follows the action. If someone wants to kill a person on the street, they desire the actions that will lead to the results they wished for. Yet, this person does not kill them because of the law that makes it illegal to murder someone. If this statute was not in effect, the desired end could be achieved without hesitiation, proving that absence of moral imperative.



This leads us to the question: is it necessary law for all rational beings always to judge their actions according to such maxims as they can themselves will that such should serve as universal laws? I say no. Acting as rational people, we can all agree on universal laws, such as thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. How do these laws apply to people that are homeless or cannot afford to survive under this universal law? They can justify stealing a loaf of bread by saying that they need to survive as well as provide for a hungry family. Here we see that even though there should be one standard of universal law, people can create different levels of universal law to justify their survival in this world.

The question I pose is: Are their different levels of universal law for different kinds of people? Or is it that there is one universal law with people that either abide by it or break it? Also, can a moral imperative be judged immoral even if it results directly in your survival? Are there imperatives that triumph or come before other imperatives in our daily lives?

Kant on Happiness and Morality: Are They Different?

In Kant’s discussion of metaphysics, he argues that, as reason determines a man’s will, he acts on his will only according to what he recognizes as “being practically necessary, i.e., as good” (412). So, man strives for what he thinks is good and necessary. When he acts according to purely objective principles, he acts according to commands of reason called imperatives (413). These objective principles are universal, and therefore not subjective to circumstance or individual experience. Kant also outlines two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative means that an action is necessary as a means to some end, while a categorical imperative means that an action is necessary in and of itself (415). He states that there is one universal end necessitating hypothetical imperatives that all rational beings strive for: happiness (415). Similarly there is one categorical imperative which applies to all rational beings: morality (416).

Thus Kant creates a clear distinction between happiness and morality. Both are objective means, and as all rational beings strive for each, both are grounded firmly in reason. Yet, they are not identical, as one is a means and one is an end. Thus one’s action can be qualified as good either because happiness is the end of this action or because the action is morally good.

In this sense, it seems that Kant makes a fairly substantial break from Aristotle. Aristotle argued that morality (i.e. virtue) is good as it brings about happiness, and happiness is good as the end of virtue. Happiness and complete virtue seem to be one in the same and both good by the same intrinsic principle, as one cannot be happy without virtue and one is happy if he is virtuous. Kant, on the other hand, makes happiness and morality separate products of reason. Any action towards happiness is justified solely by this end, while any moral action is justified solely in and of itself. Kant states that morality is the “one imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it” (416). Thus, if our actions are truly moral, there need not be any purpose or end; we act according to this imperative not because of what it attains but because it is good.

In light of Kant’s argument I pose my question thusly: Does Kant’s definition of morality as intrinsically good without having an end hold up, or must all moral actions have an end such as happiness, as Aristotle suggests? In other words, is Kant correct in separating happiness and morality?