The Categorical Imperative was formulated by Immanuel Kant as an attempt to provide a criteria through which to judge moral law. It is a deontological approach to morality, ie it relies not on the consequences of an action but on whether an action is right or wrong for it’s own sake. The Categorical Imperative is Kant bases his entire argument on reason, he believed that statements about the moral law were a priori and could be reached through logic alone, independent of experience . This leads Kant to fully explore the rational steps which direct him to his conclusions.

For Kant the only thing in the world which can be considered entirely good is the good will . By this he means that although there are other things which we might consider good, intelligence, wit, courage to name a few, all these could also be bad and hurtful. Kant argues that the good will is not reliant on the consequences of an action but in through its willing alone. To illustrate the point, one could imagine a madman with a gun intent on murdering a random member of the public. If, by chance, his target turns out to be an even more evil individual who was intending to slaughter thousands of innocent children, our first madman who ‘does good’ by shooting him, however there is no doubt that this does not show good will. Kant makes the assumption that a human being is free to chose the good will, without free will we are not free to make moral decisions and any discussion about morality is futile. The good will is the highest task for humankind.

Kant distinguishes two types of imperatives under which human beings act, Hypothetical and Catigorical Imperatives. A Hypothetical Imperative is entirely dependent on the consequences. I will do A to ensure that B and in turn C happen. Kant argues that any fully rational agent would follow Catigorical Imperatives not based on any consequences but performed for the sake of duty only, they are ends in themselves not simply means to an end.

Kant believed that we are not all fully rational but we can become more rational. It is this which separates us from the animals who are dominated by desires and instincts. A Categorical Imperative is done purely out of duty, it has no regard for self interest. Any rational person would follow a Catigorical Imperative.

Such commands as ‘Thou shalt not kill’ are considered to be examples of a Catigorical Imperative, however Kant argues that commands such as this are derived from a more general principle it is the formulation of this principle which Kant calls ‘The Catigorical Imperative’.

There are three formulations of the Catigorical Imperative.

The first and most famous is referred to as the Formulation of the Law of Nature. Kant states that one should, "act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature." By this Kant is not simply giving us a rule to live by but a way to decide which rules should be adopted to be adhered to out of duty. Kant is aiming to ensure that we eliminate self-interest from our actions. The practical implication of the first form of the Categorical Imperative is that we should only do things if we could logically conceive of everyone else acting in the same way. This way, acting completely rationally, argues Kant, enables us to develop a good will .

The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative is known as the Formula of the End in Itself and is stated thus: "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, in your own person or in that of any other, not simply as a means to and end but as an end in itself." Kant is directing us to a moral way of life in which everyone is treated with equality and as an important and valuable part of society. It can never be right, he argues, to deal with someone as you would deal with machinery or an animal, to achieve your own ends. The moral person will deal with each individual as and end in themselves.

The third formulation of the Categorical Imperative is known as the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends it requires one to, "act as if you were through your maxims a law making member of a kingdom of ends." Kant envisages a rational society in which every member acts as if their contribution to moral law were part of a law making process. As Kant argues his Categorical Imperative is based entirely on logic he believes that all members of the society would come to the same conclusions about moral law because they are all working under the same rational law.

For Kant the most important aim for humankind is the development of the good will. This is achieved through the application of The Categorical Imperative to moral law and moral decision making. Kant’s theory does not rely on the existence of god for it is based entirely on logic and Rationality. For Kant God is served when mankind acts morally toward itself using reason and logic. The theory behind the Categorical Imperative is sound and well developed, based on an intention to develop the good will so that the actions of humankind toward each other become selfless therefore, in theory, creating a Utopian society.

Although Kant’s arguments are undeniably powerful, there have been criticisms which have been levelled at his theory.

For Kant the metaphysically fairness of the Universe was important. He believed that at death all would be treated appropriately. It is difficult to see how this fits in with the rest of his thinking as he had argued that it is impossible to argue metaphysics from the constraints of the world of experience. Without God and a ‘Universal Fairness’ some of the power is taken from Kant’s argument, one might argue that there is no real reason why someone should not act from desire rather from the good will.

Warnock and Paton point out Kant’s dependency on the notion of freedom. For Kant freedom is essential, otherwise, we could not choose the good and rational will or action in a particular Catigorical Imperativercumstance . Although this objection has theoretical value, practically is we assume free will it does not affect Kant’s theory.

A further objection is to do with the ‘conflict of duties’. Using Kant’s Categorical Imperative we may find ourselves in a situation where one moral law conflicts with another. For example we have hidden some Jews in an upstairs room who we have promised to protect as one of our maxims is to ‘preserve human life’. Nazi storm-trooper arrive at the door and ask us whether we are hiding any Jews. We also have a maxim ‘always tell the truth’, one of our maxims must be broken. This problem can be resolved if we construct a hierarchy of duties, the preservation of life would therefore be seen as being more important.

David Hume raised a valuable objection to Kant. For Kant rationality is the most important characteristic of a human being. Our aim as humans therefore is to become more rational and less dependent on our desires, less like the animals. For Hume this is not a correct observation of Humanity. Hume does not deny the importance of rationality, however he states that rationality is subordinate to the senses. That it is precisely our desires and passions which make us unique and individual. According to Hume, "reason is, and indeed should be, a slave of the passions". One could argue that if we all acted according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative there would be no room for individualism and character.

We make also accuse Kant of placing so great an importance on rationality that moral reasoning and ethical conduct are taken away from the everyday context in which they have their meaning.

Most would argue that whilst the Categorical Imperative has good sound theoretical basis. It is often difficult to place it into a ‘real life’ context where moral decisions are not black and white and where emotion and passion place an important role.