Notes and study questions on the first part of the Second Section of Kant’s Grounding...

 

1.      Why does Kant think that morality must be based on reason and not on experience?  (pp.19-23)

2.      Try to sort out: the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives; the division of hypothetical imperatives into problematic and assertoric; and the related distinction between rules of skill, counsels of prudence, and commands of morality.  (pp. 25-27) 

3.      Some notes:

a.       A hypothetical imperative tells you that if you want to attain a certain goal, then you must act in a certain way.  (If you want to get into medical school, then you must study hard.  If you want people to trust you, then you ought to tell the truth. Even: If you want to get into heaven, then you must obey God’s laws. )  These imperatives only apply to a person who wants to attain that goal.  That is, they only apply to me on the hypothesis that I want to attain the goal.  If I don’t want to attain that goal, then the imperative has no force for me.

                                                   i.      A problematic hypothetical imperative says that an action is good for some purpose that you may or may not have.  (You may or may not want to get into medical school.)  Whether you want to attain that goal is problematic.

                                                 ii.      An assertoric hypothetical imperative says that an action is good for some purpose that you necessarily do have.  Happiness is such a goal.  Kant thinks that whatever else we want (or don’t want) we certainly want to be happy.  So we may confidently assert that you ought to do what is necessary to attain happiness.  We need not worry that you will reject this goal.  But the imperative is still conditional.  Its form is still “If you want to be happy, then you should _______.”  (Fill in the blank with some action.) 

b.      A categorical imperative contains no ‘if’s.  It simply tells you to do something (or not to do something).  (Don’t steal.  Honor your parents.  Never lie.)  Kant thinks that we will agree that moral rules have this form.  They apply to everyone.  You can’t evade a moral rule by saying, “Well, I don’t happen to want ______.”  (Fill in the blank with some goal.) A moral rule would not say, for example, “Treat others kindly, if you want them to like you.”  (This is a hypothetical imperative.)  To this rule, a person might reply, “I don’t care if people like me, as long as they fear me and do as I say.” 

c.       Kant is trying to explain how it is possible for there to be a valid categorical imperative.  It’s not hard to understand how reason can tell me what to do if I want to reach a certain goal.  But how can reason tell me that I ought to act in a certain way, no matter what I want?  How can there be an imperative that applies to me regardless of my goals or purposes?  What could such an imperative say?  And why should I regard it as binding on me?

4.      Why does Kant think that the concept of happiness is ‘indefinite.’?  (Pp. 27-28)

5.      Why does Kant think that we can never be sure that we have found a genuine example of a person obeying a categorical imperative?  That is, why does he think that any person, who seems to be obeying a categorical imperative, may be actually following a hypothetical imperative (a precept of prudence)?  (Pp. 28-29)

6.  At the bottom of page 29 Kant tries to explain how the concept of a categorical imperative can enable us to figure out what such an imperative will say -- what it will tell us to do.  Since we are looking for an imperative that applies to anyone, regardless of his or her desires and purposes, we cannot appeal to those desires and purposes.  All we have to work with is “the mere concept of a categorical imperative” – that is, a command that every rational creature is obliged to obey.  Since we cannot appeal to any particular content (desire, purpose, goal), we are left with the form – that is, with the fact that this command we are looking for has the form of a law for all rational beings (Kant says “the universality of a law as such”).  So the only possible categorical imperative must be an imperative that tells us to follow the rules that are fit to be universal laws (laws for everyone).  Think about it. 

6.      We can think of the Categorical Imperative as a test for the rightness or wrongness of actions.  If I am thinking about acting in a certain way, I should ask myself whether I can reasonably want everyone to act in that way.  More precisely, I should ask myself, “What rule would I be following, if I did what I am thinking about doing.”  My rule would include not only what I am proposing to do but also some description of the circumstances in which I am tempted to do it.  The rule, then, would look something like this: “When I am in such-and-such circumstances, I will do such-and-such.”  For example, it might be, “When I want something very badly, and I can’t afford to buy it, and I think I can steal it without getting caught, then I will steal it.”  Or it might be, “When I want something very badly, and I can’t afford to buy it, I will work and save my money until I can afford to buy it.”  Then I should ask myself whether I can reasonably want (Kant says “will”) everyone to follow this rule.  If the answer is ‘yes’, then what I am thinking of doing is morally permissible.  If the answer is ‘no’, then what I am thinking about doing is wrong. (Which of the two rules I just gave as examples would pass this test?  Why?)  Try to understand the reasoning that Kant uses to show, in each of his four examples (pp. 30-32), that what the person is proposing to do is contrary to the categorical imperative (i.e., cannot be made into a universal law).  (Examples 2 and 4 are easier to understand.  Don’t worry if #s 1 and 3 seem obscure.)