Essay On Kant's Categorical Imperative

Immanuel Kant created a handful of formulations regarding his system of determining morality, the Categorical Imperative. James and Stuart Rachels in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, illuminate Kant's first and second Categorical Imperatives. While Kant claims the formulations are equivalent, they offer differing guidelines on how the Categorical Imperative is operated. Although the formulations share the same basis, the difference regarding how the formulations are adhered, is a large distinction difficult to ignore, and renders the two versions as separate subjects. The binding trait between Kant's first and second Categorical Imperatives is the element of reason. Both reinforce Kant's opinion that people have a duty to respect rational thinking. In the first formulation, Kant instructs people to use reason for the purpose of determining if an action is moral by the standard of it being good for everyone, or if it should be applied as a universal moral law. Kant believes it is critical to determine moral laws without the consideration of the goals or outcomes
In Kant's first Categorical Imperative, he speaks of using logic for deciding universal law, but doesn't specify who should be considered when applying the question, is it good for everyone? With Kant's second Categorical Imperative, it is clear he believes rationality should be used for the sake of other rational beings, humans. Kant obviously omits animals or any other “object” free of the ability to act independently and rationally. Essentially what Kant clarifies in the second Categorical Imperative is that use of the formulations, applies only to people, as people are “free agents capable of making their own decisions”(Rachels 138). Humans are able to use hypothetical imperatives, or the consideration of goals and outcomes when making decisions, if it doesn't involve