1.

Essay 1-2 Paragraphs Summarize Kant’s Theory of Theological Ethics

Immanuel Kant is a non-consequentialist: he thinks that there are certain

things we cannot do even if doing so would produce a better outcome. Kant
believed he was proposing a consistent moral system by using reason that
would help people deal with moral dilemmas of everyday life and provide all of
us with a useful guide to act right. The bases for this moral system were having
the intention and motivation of doing the right thing because it’s our duty. Kant’s
duty-based ethics was based on what he calls his “categorical imperative”, i.e.,
golden rules that are true in all circumstances. In his combined works, Kant
constructed the basis for an ethical law from the concept of duty. Kant began
his ethical theory by arguing that the only virtue that can be unqualifiedly good
is a good will. No other virtue has this status because every other virtue can be
used to achieve immoral ends (the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to
an evil person. Applying the categorical imperative, duties arise because failure
to fulfil them would either result in a contradiction in conception or in a
contradiction in the will. The former is classified as perfect duties, the latter as
imperfect. A perfect duty always holds true there is a perfect duty to tell the
truth, so we must never lie. An imperfect duty allows flexibility beneficence is
an imperfect duty because we are not obliged to be completely beneficent at all
times but may choose the times and places in which we are.[8] Kant believed
that perfect duties are more important than imperfect duties: if a conflict
between duties arises, the perfect duty must be followed.

The primary formulation of Kant's ethics is the categorical imperative,

from which he derived four further formulations. Kant made a distinction
between categorical and hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is
one we must obey if we want to satisfy our desires: 'go to the doctor' is a
hypothetical imperative because we are only obliged to obey it if we want to get
well. A categorical imperative bind us regardless of our desires: everyone has
a duty to not lie, regardless of circumstances and even if it is in our interest to
do so. These imperatives are morally binding because they are based on
reason, rather than contingent facts about an agent. Unlike hypothetical
imperatives, which bind us insofar as we are part of a group or society which
we owe duties to, we cannot opt out of the categorical imperative because we
cannot opt out of being rational agents. We owe a duty to rationality by virtue
of being rational agents; therefore, rational moral principles apply to all rational
agents at all time. Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is that
of “universalizability”. Kant believed that morality is the objective law of reason:
just as objective physical laws necessitate physical actions. He thus believed
that a perfectly rational being must also be perfectly moral because a perfectly
rational being subjectively finds it necessary to do what is rationally necessary.
Because humans are not perfectly rational (they partly act by instinct), Kant
believed that humans must conform their subjective will with objective rational
laws, which he called conformity obligation. Kant argued that the objective law
of reason is a priori, existing externally from rational being. Just as physical
laws exist prior to physical beings, rational laws (morality) exist prior to rational
beings. Therefore, according to Kant, rational morality is universal and cannot
change depending on circumstance.
2. Differentiate Hypothetical Imperative and Categorical Imperative

The Hypothetical Imperative and Categorical Imperative are two

philosophical concepts originally introduced through the writings of Immanuel
Kant. According to Kant, it is possible to sum up morality in an imperative or an
ultimate commandment of reason. It is from this imperative that all duties and
obligations derive. The main difference between hypothetical and categorical
imperative is that hypothetical imperatives are moral commands that are
conditional on personal desire or motive while categorical imperatives are
commands you must follow, regardless of your desires and motives. ...

Hypothetical Imperative is a moral command that is conditional on

personal desire or motive. In other words, a hypothetical imperative is a
command you should follow if you want something. They tell us how to act in
order to achieve a specific goal. For example, if you want to get a good grade,
you should study; similarly, if you want to earn money, you should get a job.
Moreover, hypothetical imperatives are imperatives based on desire or
inclination, and their commandment of reason applies only conditionally.
Although hypothetical imperatives tell us which means best achieve our ends,
they do not tell us which ends we should choose. Furthermore, Kant divides
hypothetical imperatives into two categories as the rules of skill and the
counsels of prudence.

In contrast to this there is the Categorical Imperative means a command

to perform actions that are absolute moral rules that do not consider
consequences. According to Kant, this meant that moral statements could only
be known through reason, because they are a priori and so there must be a
method to work out if a statement is true or false. This helps us know what our
duty is and is applied universally. The categorical imperative is a moral
absolute. It is expressed in three distinct formulations. In the first formulation,
Kant is giving content to morality, defining what is right and wrong. He describes
it as a “compass” that we can use to distinguish between right and wrong. He
suggests that we should "act only on that maxim whereby thou constant the
same time will that it should become a universal law". He said that an act is
wrong if its maxim cannot be willed (by others and yourself) into becoming
universal law. Whatever can be universally agreed to is what is right or wrong
without contradiction. The second formulation suggests that we should treat
other rational beings as ends in themselves, never as a means to an end. He
is saying that the identity of a person is tied to the rationality of their actions, not
their ego. A person’s rationality is definitive of what we are made up of, our
absolute worth. Kant's third and final formulation of the categorical imperative
is the principle of autonomy–the autonomy of will. It outlines that every rational
being is able to reason through to the necessary conclusions to act morally, as
a "maker of laws in the kingdom of ends" This principle of autonomy allows the
first formulation of the categorical imperative to make sense.

In conclusion categorical imperatives are a moral law that is

unconditional or deontological for all cases, the validity or claim of which does
not depend on any ulterior motive or end. “Thou shalt not steal,” for example,
is categorical as distinct from the hypothetical imperatives associated with
desire, such as “Do not steal if you want to be popular.” For Kant there was only
 one such categorical imperative, which he formulated in various ways. The
hypothetical imperative is always immoral and Kant justifies this by claiming we
should do the right thing regardless of the outcome.

3. Compare and Contrast Deontology and Utilitarianism

People will either justify the means and the end, according to morality. It
not only tells people what is good or wrong to do, but it also forces them to act
in accordance with their conscience. Regarding morals, there are several
schools of thought. Utilitarianism and Deontology are two examples of these
moral theories.

Utilitarianism revolves around the concept of “the end justifies the

means.” It believes that outcomes as a result of an action have a greater value
compared to the latter. It also states that the most ethical thing to do is to take
advantage of happiness for the good of the society. As a result, utilitarianism
depends on consequentiality. There is a belief that the philosopher thinks and
implements ideas that are more selfish in the utilitarianism school of thought.
Another important characteristic in Utilitarianism is that it does not pay special
attention to codes of conduct. The stress is laid on the end that the means, of
getting there, becomes only secondary. In such a context, the attention paid to
the manner in which a goal is achieved is insignificant. This is why one can
comment that Utilitarianism does not stress on the code of conduct. However,
when paying attention to Deontology it is different in comparison to
Utilitarianism.

Meanwhile, deontology is another moral theory that is dependent on the

Scriptures which may refer to rules, moral laws, and intuition. It is based on the
Greek words “deon” and “logos,” meaning the “study of duty.” Deontology is
exactly the opposite of utilitarianism when it comes to the explanations of its
concepts. Deontology does not believe in the concept of ‘the end justifies the
means. On the other hand, it says ‘the end does not justify the means.’ This is
the main difference between utilitarianism and deontology. Another important
difference between the two schools of thought regarding ethical behavior is that,
utilitarianism is more consequence-oriented in character. On the other hand,
deontology is not consequence-oriented in nature. It is totally dependent on
scriptures. Thus, it can be understood that deontology follows scriptures that
show sufficient light on the rules of conduct or moral rules and intuition. One of
the finest principles included in the school of thought of deontology is that every
action should be characterized by morality. It is the morality of an action that
can determine the morality of its outcome. Deontology says that if the action is
not moral in character or nature then the outcome too cannot be moral or
ethical. This is one of the important principles laid down by the ethical school of
thought called deontology. Deontology takes the universally accepted codes of
conduct into account.

By contrast, deontology focuses on the moral aspects of any action, not

its consequences. This philosophy believes that some acts are always wrong,
regardless of the consequences. Deontologists find lying to be unacceptable,
for example, even when someone lies in order to bring about a desirable result.
Both of these systems have weaknesses. For instance, critics charge that
utilitarianism justifies enslaving a small group of people in order to help a larger
group. Critics of deontology point out that its rigidity does not allow for
exceptional cases where a morally dubious action avoids causing harm to
others. On the other hand, utilitarianism does not take universally accepted
codes of conduct into account.