Perspectives on Kant
From Dignity and Practical Reason in Kant's Moral Philosophy
by Thomas J Hill
1. The Hypothetical Imperative
What is the hypothetical imperative? It is the idea that if one wills an end, and the means are known, and within one's power, then one ought to will those means. It is a practical concept, and seemingly straightforward. This would be the action of a fully rational person. There are people who are not fully rational, though, and may not will the means to the end they want.
Those who offend against the principle are those who will a certain end, but don't take the means necessary to reach that end.
The categorical imperative can help us reason out whether or not the means to any particular end are immoral -- if they are, then it is better to give up the end rather than use immoral means to achieve it. The hypothetical imperative requires, in every case, either giving up the end or following through with the means -- the offender does neither.
The hypothetical imperative is a rational rule of conduct, to be followed universally by rational beings, as is the categorical imperative. However, any particular hypothetical imperative depends on knowing what the subject's end is for defense and explanation, whereas any particular categorical imperative would hold for all rational beings -- it must have as an end something all rational beings would will.
Kant held the categorical imperative in such high regard because he felt humanity's noblest feature was its capacity for self-government. The following of the categorical imperative, then, is an expression of this capacity. We are all autonomous in that we can give the law to ourselves, but if we don't follow it out of duty, we are not expressing that autonomy in our decisions.
2. Humanity as an End in Itself
When Kant says to treat humanity as an end in itself, he says "humanity, whether in your own person or the person of any other..." This implies that it is not the person, but the humanity in the person that should be treated as an end. In the Groundwork, the "rational nature" is included under, if not wholly identified with, the humanity of a person.
Humanity includes the ability to act on principles, to act out of prudence, to follow categorical imperatives regardless of inclination, to do abstract thought, etc.
The humanity of a person has dignity, which means it has unconditional and incomparable worth. It is priceless. But if two things with dignity conflict, can one be sacrificed for the other? Or can we never even think to trade one dignity for another?
Humanity is an end. What does this mean? We need to look at the term "dignity" that is applied to it. This means that it is to always be valued and furthered, never impeded. The free exercise of one's humanity is an end in itself -- this might be a better formulation.
from The Practice of Moral Judgment
by Barbara Herman
1. On the Value of Acting from the Motive of Duty
What is the difference between someone whose acts are morally good and someone whose acts are morally correct? Is it only acting from the motive of duty?
An act with moral worth is an act in which the agent takes into account the rightness of her act as the motive.