Annotating Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
On pages 533 and 534 of his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant explains the basis for and applications of his Formula of Universal Law. In my critical reading of the text, I conceptualized Kant’s logic by defining unfamiliar vocabulary and restating his ideas in a way that made sense to me.
In my annotations, I found that defining concepts I was unfamiliar with provided a deeper understanding of the text. In my first read, I brushed past the concepts of “hypothetical” and “categorical” imperative, as Kant explained them on page 533. During my second layer of annotations, I added definitions for both. A hypothetical imperative, I wrote, “leads to good, action not of moral worth [sic].” Conversely, a categorical imperative’s “value [is] judged by [its] intrinsic character.” Upon reflection, I realize that ‘good’ might not be the correct word to encapsulate Kant’s point. Kant says that the only actions of moral worth are those compelled by moral duty. After reflection, I see that duty is the basis for Kant’s Formula of Universal Law– people are duty-bound to categorical imperatives, whereas hypothetical imperatives don’t invoke the same moral duty. Through the Formula of Universal Law, Kant defines categorical imperatives on the basis of duty, an important aspect of his theory of how people should ethically think and act.
It was also helpful to rewrite Kant’s ideas in my own words. For instance, I simplified Kant’s position on Universal Law– “an unconditional command does not leave it open to the will to do the opposite at its discretion and therefore alone carries with it that necessity which we demand from a law” (533)– to simply, “imperative must be done, impossible not to uphold– ex. If everyone lied, would be impossible [sic].” A shorter interpretation allowed me to more easily conceptualize Kant’s complex argument. He simply explains that for an imperative to be “categorical” in nature, people must be motivated to act by intrinsic moral duty, as compared to a hypothetical imperative, where the motivation behind the action is not a sole moral duty, but a means to an end. Put simply, Kant says that the only action of moral worth is the one motivated by duty. The framework of the Formula of Universal Law, then, is the thought experiment through which categorical imperatives may be found by imagining a world in which a maxim becomes universal law. My annotations helped simplify the essential framework Kant sets forth to distinguish an action of inherent moral worth.
After annotating, I understood the distinction between categorical and hypothetical imperatives and the function of the Formula of Universal law to establish what categorical imperatives might be. When Kant moves into exemplary cases later in the passage, I used my conceptualization of categorical imperatives to understand the framework Kant applied to each case. For example, a man looking to take a loan, knowing he couldn’t pay it back, asks, “How would things stand if my maxim became universal law?” (534). Kant reasoned that if everyone made promises without the intention of keeping them, “there would be no purpose of promising” (534). Therefore, people have a moral duty to keep promises, solely for the sake of the promise, lest the institution of promising be rendered impossible. Through my understanding of how categorical imperatives are defined and applied by Kant, I extracted the meaning of his overarching claim– that some moral duties exist beyond simple “should-dos,” but as mandates of the moral law.
My annotations of pages 533 and 534 of Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
Bibliography
Immanuel, Kant. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings, by John Perry et al., New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 2015.
