Phi202

Kant thinks that the moral rules that are accountable from pure reason must thereby have a certain 'formal' character which is to say that they should be in a certain way free of empirical matter. What does this amount to?

It's anyway plausible in any case that morality issues in categorical imperatives as opposed to hypothetical ones. It doesn't just say: do it if you want. Rationality does issue such commands, but these are dictated at prudence not morality. Example: morality doesn't say "don't lie if you want to avoid notoriety". It says "don't lie.". So the imperatives (commands) of morality are unconditional.

Because these categorical imperatives are a priori they can't take as a condition a desire for something empirical. (e.g the desire for pleasure. Such a desire doesn't arise from the very rational nature of the being; such a desire is based on feeling and not reason. It is pathological (as in pathos). This is because every rational being must accept the claim if it is to be a priori. But a desire for something empirical won't be possessed by every rational being.

See quote 1. from wk 6 handout

For Kant the fundamental moral principle must be in this way formal, non-empirical. For Kant, there are a number of ways, all equivalent, to formulate the basic categorical imperative.

(I) The Formula of the Law of Nature

Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a law of nature.

His point is that our actions are always in accord with some implicit policy or maxim. If you lie, the maxim might be: Lie when convenient. He claims that you can't rationally intend or will that such a policy be universally adopted. Not because it would be unpleasant but because it would be self-defeating logically. If everyone held that policy, no-one would trust anyone's word so you couldn't take advantage by lying. It is this lack of universability that makes the use of the maxim irrational (a rational maxim would have to be universally adopted).