First off, allow me to talk about moral skepticism. (scepticism as the author put it) A moral sceptic might be the sort of person who says "All this talk of morality is tripe," who rejects morality and will take no notice of it. (Rachels, 2010, p. 50)
There are some people in this world who will take morality and toss it out the window, because to them morality is binding and judgemental to the point to where they think that it will control you.
Hypothetical and Categorical imperatives are very interesting in their own unique way.
Hypothetical in Kant 's distinction is "If you want X, do Y" (or "You ought to do Y") will be a hypothetical imperative if it is based on the supposed fact that Y is, in the circumstances, the only (or the best) available means to X, that is, on a causal relation between Y and X. (Rachels, 2010, p. 53) Now here is something to think about. When he came up with the distinction, Kant put in the word "Ought" which like morals in general tell you what you 'ought ' to do. And that should be more than sufficient to truly think
…show more content…
A categorical imperative, then, would express a reason for acting which was unconditional in the sense of not being contingent upon any present desire of the agent to whose satisfaction the recommended action would contribute as a means--or more directly... (Rachels, 2010, p. 53) In this way we understand that when we "ought" to do something we are expressing the kind of action that we are willing to take to meet the goal morally where we should be. And that is where the skeptic draws the line because he believes that there should be no boundary or moral code that you should have to answer to, or the reasons for answering it. He just believes in his own judgements that will get him through life without morals or binding guidelines. And that to me, is a foolish way to live. If we were to live as moral skeptics, and always criticizing those with morals then are we not also criticizing ourselves for our own