Immanuel Kant

Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Categorical Imperative

• “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (421/p 88)
• “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.” (421/89)
• “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” (429/96)
• “Act on maxims of a member who makes universal laws for a merely possible kingdom of ends.” (par 439/p.106).

​

​

Test for failure

• formulate a maxim that articulates your reason for acting as you propose;
• recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents;

​

3. consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature; If it is, then

4. ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will such a world. If you could, the act is morally permissible.

​

Discussion questions

1. Kant articulates a clear distinction between a) the sensible and the intelligible, b) experience and reason, and c) the laws of nature and the moral law. Discuss the distinction Kant draws between each of these pairings. And then contemplate how this distinction relates to his repeated claim that you cannot draw an “ought” from an “is.”

​

2. Kant says you cannot derive moral law from experience—it is a priori precisely because it does not depend on experience. He uses examples to sketch the contours of the moral law’s operations, but he does not cite examples as evidence of the law. He does offer evidence, however. Where does he get his evidence? (Where does one find evidence of a priori knowledge?) See the translator’s intro of the pdf version (on p. viii-ix) for some insight here.

​

Discussion questions, cont

3. Everything hinges for Kant on a notion of freedom that is autonomous but also necessarily obligated. Two questions: a) According to him, what’s the evidence that a rational being is free? And b), why is it that this freedom is neither simply a license to do as one pleases nor simply to sit around contemplating or admiring one’s freedom…on a beach, sipping frozen drinks topped with tiny umbrellas? What is this freedom, that is not the same as autonomy, iow?

​

4. The Categorical Imperative is precisely an imperative, a performative prescription (“Act as if…”) rather than a constative description or statement about an existing truth. Where does it come from? And to whom is it addressed? What’s the rhetorical situation here? And how significant is it that the Moral Law, the supreme ethical principle comes in as a performative?

​