What Is The Difference Between Kant And Free

KANT AND FREE WILL

Introduction

At first place in the chapter 1 of GMM, Kant tries to demonstrate that there is a moral law which is driven from the sense of moral obligations. He identifies how the moral law possibly driven from the sense of moral obligations that motive us to act morally. Kant simply implies that a universal moral law that can be only exist in kind of formula determining if an action is moral or not. He named the formula Categorical Imperative which can be basically defined as “Always act so that you can will the rule of your action to be a universal law.” It is ‘categorical’ because it is not ‘hypothetical’ or ‘contingent’ on anything, but is always and everywhere ‘universal’. Because it is called an ‘imperative’

In this last principle, Kant understands that there is the possibility (or ‘capacity’) for anyone to act morally, and describes what this action would look like in practice. It explains why we are hesitant to try to put a value on a person’s life, and why most people would refuse to even attempt such a thing. For example, money would introduce a ‘conditional’ value that is not permitted in Kant’s view.

“For other beings such as human beings whose rational capacities govern a will that might be moved by various incentives, temptations, and fears, the representation of something as good or required is not, by itself, sufficient for action. In such beings, the determination by their reason that some option is good or required presents itself as a kind of command as the judgment that they ought to act accordingly (even if they want not to). (Kant 412-414)

There must be a categorical imperative that Kant states “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can concomitantly will that it should become a universal law.”. Kant claims his categorical imperative is the only principle of morality (the only categorical imperative), we are entitled to expect that it determine the principles of morality uniquely. Since, if it leaves multiple incompatible sets of maxims open (we will have no basis for choosing among them), then there being no other principles of morality on which to base the choice besides categorical imperative. Assume that a person who believes s/he is acting from duty as the universal law suggested, it is possible that this person believes ‘false’ universal moral law. CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform. Instead of this, it can tells us which maxims to fit acting morally. CI applies a test on maxims to conduct a necessary condition of their acceptability. This means that when we decide how to act in a given situation and choose the action (with our free, autonomous will), we would want everyone else to act just as we did. The autonomy of this decision leads to personal responsibility, and excludes any other reason to act that was not from our own free will. Kant indicates that he takes himself to be offering three different