Philosophy in Kant's Groundwork of

Philosophy In Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he defines an imperative as a command (an "ought") that declares something is good to do or not to do (24). In addition, he distinguishes between two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative represents "a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one wills (or that is at least possible for one to will)" (25).

In other words, a hypothetical imperative involves an action that is done for another reason, or as a way to achieve something else. In contrast, a categorical imperative "represents an action as objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end" (25). This means a categorical imperative involves an action that has no other purpose but itself. It is not done to attain another end or motive. For example, the declaration that I ought to feed my cat so she stays alive is a hypothetical imperative.

An example of a categorical imperative, on the other hand, is that we should not kill other people. In the first case, I feed my cat in order to achieve the goal or end of keeping her alive. But in the case of killing others, I ought to refrain from killing because it is wrong in itself to take another person's life. If someone said that they did not kill others because they want to avoid jail, we would question whether their motivation was truly moral.

This example shows that we usually think that taking another person's life is wrong for no other reason than itself. Therefore, according to Kant's definitions, not killing other people is a categorical imperative rather than a hypothetical one. Furthermore, for Kant, categorical imperatives are objectively necessary because the "action is represented as in itself good, hence as necessary in a will in itself conforming to reason" (25). Hypothetical imperatives are only practically necessary because they represent "a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one wills" (25).

Since a hypothetical imperative represents one of many possibilities that are only means to an end, they cannot be objectively necessary, and therefore do not have the same command over human behavior as a categorical imperative. As Kant notes, commands are laws that we must obey, even when they contradict our inclinations (27). (b) If we treat others as a means to an end, then we use them in service of another goal.

However, if we treat others as an end in themselves, then we respect them without regard to any other goals or ends. To treat someone as a means to an end is to make them less important than some end result, whereas to treat someone as an end in themselves makes them the final and most important consideration. Slavery may be the most offensive example of using others as a means to an end, but there are many more benign examples.

For instance, when I take my car to the mechanic, do I treat the mechanic as an end in himself or is he simply a means to achieve the goal of getting my.