Free Will In Kant's Hypothetical Imperatives

Kant rejected theonomy and instead proposed that because free will is a human trait, we should aim to keep hold of that and retain our personal autonomy - not requiring any aspect of religion to govern our moral values. He holds the deontological view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of whether they beget positive or negative consequences. Such absolute rules are described in his 1785 text Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals as categorical imperatives: unconditional moral obligations which we must follow and are bound to as a result of our rationality. His proposal contrasts “hypothetical imperatives”, in which we act to achieve certain ends, such as in religious morality. With a hypothetical imperative, one would carry out a particular action in order to achieve a separate result - for example, the way in which Christians abide by God’s imposed law in order to reach Heaven. However, to Kant, this concept
Kant deemed that an action was moral if its motive could embody a ‘maxim’ which we could justify if it were a universal law; “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, p.30). Therefore, we act in accordance with a law created through our own reason, making it a truly autonomous act. This means that no moral decision depends on the situation it is in, which would impose external laws on morality. For example, “lying is always wrong” because we cannot allow lying to be a universal law, as it would be immoral for lying to always be acceptable, so there should be no exceptions regardless of if there would be any positive consequences from the lie in a particular situation. Kant’s argument is that, instead of being obedient to an externally imposed law or religious precept, one should be obedient to one’s own self-imposed