Categorical Imperatives are necessary in
Premises:
1. A categorical imperative is an imperative that is not concerned with the end result. (416)
a) It is concerned with the form of the action and the principle that it follows.
b) Any "good" in the action is based from someone's mental disposition.
c) One does not care about the consequences from a categorical imperative.
2. Categorical imperatives are not limited by any condition. (416 - 417)
a) it can be called a command because it is necessary.
b) the law involves the concept of necessity
c) the law is not limited and it has no boundaries
3. Morality is not a condition by which categorical imperatives follow, but it is a guideline. (inferred from pages 416-418) (i)
a) an imperative is acted upon as if there were a universal rule (maxim) about it
b) 3 types of imperatives
1b) first one is belonging to art (technical)
2b) second one is belonging to welfare (pragmatic)
3b) belonging to free conduct (moral)
c) free conduct is acted upon by which people believe should be a maxim.
4. The idea that a categorical imperative is a priori. (419- 420)
a) Moral (belonging to free conduct) does not necessarily abide by any concrete laws.
a1) what is it based on?
1) based on judgments we see as necessary
2) can be based on experience
b) A categorical imperative is essentially a practical law
5. A person can act out on something they believe is necessary and should be a maxim but doesn't necessarily have to agree with everyone else. (i)
a) they use their own logic
b) believe it is necessary, and act on it out of necessity
6. Duty (434)
a) it is also known as practical necessitation
b) every rational being must legislate universal law
b1) guided by his own will's maxin
c) does what he sees necessary
I found the section on which you wrote your argument outline to be particularly confusing, but I think I have a much better understanding of some of the main ideas after reading your summary. It is difficult to follow Kant's logic that something can truly be imperative such that the ends are almost meaningless and it is only the means that matter, but your outline did a fine job in going over these points. One area, however: In section 417, Kant says, "The question now arises: how are all of these imperatives possible?" This paragraph leading up to section 418 was for me, one of the most confusing in the passage (do we get an answer to this question?) but it is somewhat unaddressed in your argument outline. Overall though I feel that your argument outline went over most if not all of the necessary parts, and if I would have read this passage and outlined it, my conclusion would probably be identical to yours.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ken in the aspect of the complexity of Kant's argument, and an outline for this work could have been better, but given the difficulty of the material, your work was decent enough to amass a firm general understanding. Your third premise was done very well, and although you only elaborated on the third imperative, its my understanding that it was the most important of the prior. I believe premise 4 should have more conviction as a categorical imperative *must* be a priori rather than just as an idea. The main subpremise I found very confusing was the very last of premise 6, in which I'm unsure to how this relates to maxim and categorical imperative, and instead seems to dictate a more circumstantial action.
ReplyDeleteVery well outlined considering Kant was difficult to read. You simplified it well. I liked the detail within the subtext of each premise. One premise that did not make sense to me was "Duty" at the end. Normally the last premise should roll into the conclusion, but the information about Duty left a small gap in between the final premise and the conclusion. I know you mentioned "necessity" in both the duty premise and the conclusion, but it is still confusing as to how they relate. Perhaps Duty could have been mentioned earlier within the outline. You stated that categorical imperatives are not limited by any condition; I was confused about duties because if duties govern the categorical imperative, then are they considered a condition that rules the outcome? Overall, you did a good job, and made Kant's points easier to understand.
ReplyDeleteKant really bothers me because he uses convoluted language to circle around the same point over and over and over again, and I think you did a good job getting to the core of what he was saying. I think some of your premises could have been further expanded upon. I think why you included duty is because duties are necessary and so are categorical imperatives. Duty relates to the previous premise, because there the outline authour also mentions necessity, in relation to people's actions. By saying that a person should "act out on something they believe is necessary" I think the author was saying that we should act upon our duties, so it fits that the premise of duty would be included. I do agree with "T.DiSalvo33" that perhaps a final premise could have been included to make the outline come ful circle completely, or perhaps the final premise could have been expounded upon.
ReplyDelete