The CyberPhilosopher

Kant’s conception of the Categorical Imperative is, as he puts it, ‘The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e. as objectively necessary’. On the other side, a hypothetical imperative represents practical necessity or things that are directed towards a goal or desire. Kant acknowledges that any given circumstance is arguable hypothetical and not categorical, when he writes ‘but it is rather to be feared that all those which seem to be categorical may yet be at bottom hypothetical,’ and goes on to describe a situation where someone does not lie for fear of the results, and not the duty itself. To resolve this, and save the categorical, he says ‘There is therefore but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim where by thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’. Because hypothetical imperatives revolve around practical situations, these would relate more around social institutions, laws, and customs.

On one level, the Categorical Imperative sounds like a rational translation of the ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, but being based on a rational conception of duty, it has some implications. First, the foundation does not come from a duty imposed by a creator, but instead by the fact of nature. Acting a certain way is not the result of a desire but necessity of action. The first example where he describes taking your own life points to this direction, the actions dictated have nothing to do with the desire the individual feels, but from the understanding that if all living beings took their own life instead of using the emotional state to compel life to improve itself this would be contrary to nature. Kant is begging the question in this example that there is a necessary action in this scenario, but assuming that nature does derive from his maximum, his conclusion may be accurate.

Other examples may be better suited, such as paying taxes to a government you support and live under. If a person supports their governments actions they implicitly acknowledge and agree with the nature of that organization If they then avoid paying taxes into the system it is in contradiction with their ‘buy-in’ to the system. In fact if everyone avoided paying taxes the government could not function. This example is different from the suicide example because the individual has made an investment into the system they choose to support, where the question of suicide is not one of conscious decision to support a system.

The categorical imperative is applicable to any system today, when you look at the nature of that system and attempt to stay consistent with it. The consequences of deviating from those duties (individually hypothetical) generally result in the destruction of the system (perhaps just from their perspective) or expulsion from it (if a person lies, there credibility is damaged and their statements are no longer taken at face value, when a person does not pay taxes they go to jail and do not participate in society).