In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant endeavors to identify and corroborate the “supreme principle of morality” (SP) (392), deeming it necessary as “morals themselves remain subject to all sorts of corruption as long as we lack the guideline and supreme norm by which to judge them correctly” (390). According to Kant, the SP, as a moral law and the ground of an obligation, “must carry with it absolute necessity” (389). In other words, it must bind all rational beings, certainly not only a subset of human beings, and be entirely universal in the scope of its application. This constraint implies that the SP cannot be in any part based on empirical grounds, as such grounds are built from the observation of rational natures …show more content…
A categorical imperative is such that it commands an action that is “objectively necessary by itself, without reference to another end” (414). From these definitions, it is clear to see that an imperative carries absolute necessity and universality. Hence, Kant formulates the SP as the categorical imperative, which is beneficial as Kant also asserts exactly what is contained by a categorical imperative, namely the law and “only the necessity of the maxim to conform to with this law” (420-421), can be revealed by inspection. Kant’s categorical imperative …show more content…
A rational being can practically use C1 to identify if he ought or ought not to follow any given maxim, yet N offers no practical guidance. In C1, Kant does establish that there must exist an invertible transformation from some universal laws to maxims by explicitly stating that actions ought according to a maxim which is transformed into a universal law, and at the same time obeyed. Hence, the representation of the universal law that has been willed from a maxim is that maxim. However, this is not the same as the claim that such an invertible transformation exists for all universal laws, which is a needed lemma to move from N to