Immanuel Kant invented the categorical imperative when dealing with the importance of moral duty. Hypothetical imperatives were not enough with Kant as he believed it was better to ignore the consequences of an action and focus more on morality. He developed three categorical imperatives that were to combine into one central idea. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the first and third formulations of the imperative are incompatible. These two ideas are very similar but have subtle differences that contribute to a contradiction. Explaining both types first will make this distinction easier to recognize. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first categorical imperative concerns the action an individual will take. The imperative says that I should not act except in such a way that I can also will my maxim to become universal law. (Kant, 14) Through this maxim, the use of reason, duty and will are very important. Basically, nothing other than the imperative should matter when faced with a situation. An example Kant uses is lying to someone under pressure to avoid someone or something, which we all do frequently. He then goes on to explain the pros and cons of carrying out such an act and goes into detail about the lying scenario. If one were to lie to get out of something, it could backfire and create a problem. Basically, even if there was a situation where you could lie and it wouldn't affect you, fear or even just considering the consequences makes a difference. Being sincere out of duty and high moral standards is very different than being sincere out of fear of consequences. It is important not to deviate from duty. He ultimately concludes that whether it works in the long run or not, if this maxim were to become universal, it would not be beneficial. It wouldn't work because you can't want a universal law to lie. If this were his law, none of his promises would matter and no one would believe him. This maxim would self-destruct because if it became universal there would be no promise. The universality of the situation seems to be the most important thing. The situational basis doesn't make a difference. You should act in a certain way according to duty and will. This law can be applied to any rational being in any situation. When making a decision, the physical characteristics of the situation are obsolete to eliminate subjective scenarios. In other words, hypothetical imperatives do not show morality and duty because they are conditional; while the categorical imperative is something you just think and do, and is not based on desires or needs. He goes on to support his findings by explaining why the imperative can be applied. If the maxim you practice cannot be disposed to a universal law, it must be rejected. The reasons for refusal are also very important. For example, something cannot be rejected due to some kind of disadvantage for one or others; must be rejected because it is not suitable to be considered universal law. Kant goes on to say that respect prevails over inclination and that the need to act respectfully towards a law is what establishes duty, which is a condition of good will. The third formulation of the categorical imperative concerns the individual as well as society as such. a whole. It focuses on the ends for which people and societies act. Kant goes on to create the concept of a realm of ends in which people apply the third formation of the categorical imperative. Kant describes this as a concept of every human will as willwhich legislates the universal law in all its maxims. (Kant, 38) Kant sees all other attempts at discovering morality as failures. He sees man bound to the law by his duty, but the problem is that this is not all he is obligated to do. Kant argues that the will has been forced when laws are enacted and people comply with them only because of the compulsion of the legislator. Therefore, this law did not arise from the will of the individual, but rather is simply obeyed by the individual out of fear and conformity. Throughout this whole Kantian conclusion, the point becomes that duty is lost. By simply obeying the law and having nothing to do with its making, duty is replaced by acting on interest. This is where the realm of ends comes into play. The kingdom is a systematic union of different rational beings through common laws. The idea is to eliminate personal differences in rational beings and private ends and imagine a connected set of ends. This should create a systematic union of rational beings through common objective laws. (Kant, 39) A rational being would belong as a member of the realm of ends by helping to create laws and respecting them. This creates the need for duty and makes the relationship between individuals very important. Feelings, impulses and inclinations have disappeared and this promotes the idea of ​​a rational being who obeys only laws that he himself at the same time approves of. The law that all of society respects and agrees upon would more commonly become ethical laws that are followed unconsciously by a mostly always rational being. The whole autonomy of the situation is what helps paint the picture. The individual himself actually has something to do with the creation of the law and is rooted in it. These formulations of the categorical imperative are very similar but differ in subtle and important ways. The first formulation is a more unity-based formulation with the form of the universality of the will. In this context, the third categorical imperative tends more towards the totality that includes the system of ends. Unity and totality seem similar conditions but it is the motivation towards these laws that makes them different. Drive is a personal will upon which you act. A person would act in a way that he believes could be made a law. They are observing their own tendencies and actions. In the third imperative the individual will takes a back seat to the totality of the will. There is an overall will that binds all rational beings as ends in themselves linked to the overall moral maxim. Basically, the first formulation is about the individual and how he expects actions to take place, while the third formulation focuses on other people and the individual as a contributor. Another difference between these wills is the heteronomy of the first imperative compared to the autonomy of the third imperative. The first categorical imperative concerns the external incentive to obey certain laws. This focuses on obeying laws that would be considered valid for all rational beings. This might seem very similar to the third categorical imperative, but this would focus on the fact that every rational being is a potential author of the laws valid for all. This is where dignity comes into play. Each individual, according to this maxim, has a distinct value for all of humanity since it is rooted in its structure. The third formulation would seem to promote ethical laws under which people are so involved that they unconsciously obey. The realm of ends is a cohesive unity that sees all rational beings on the same wavelength. Please note: this is just an example. Get a personalized article from our writers now,.