Categorical Imperatives versus Hypothetical …show more content…
In order to achieve his goal, he takes a group hostage and threatens the people’s lives in an attempt to bargain for the money. He then approaches a woman and points the gun at her head, suggesting that she is the next victim. It just so happens that this woman possesses a licensed handgun and therefore has the power to kill the robber and save herself and the rest of the hostages. In regards to the categorical imperative, the woman would consider if the maxim, murdering another person, could be universalized. Kant would reason that obviously murder cannot be applied universally because then everyone would murder each other and humanity would cease to exist; however, this is a situation of self-defense, not simply murder. In addition, in killing the robber, the woman would be treating him as a means to an end rather than an end …show more content…
In the woman’s situation, it seems completely logical for her to murder the robber in order to save the most innocent lives possible, which suggests ideas some utilitarian principles. However, rather than murder the robber, the woman could shoot the robber in the leg to stop him from causing further damage, and therefore, giving the hostages enough time to escape. The maxim in this mindset would be when in a self-defense situation, aim to stop the aggressor without means of murder and also without becoming an aggressor yourself, which could be applied universally. In this way, the woman can morally shoot the man in self-defense; however, the woman cannot become destructive herself. In context of the second formulation, the woman would be allowed to harm the robber because if she allowed him to kill her when she had the power to stop it, she would be treating herself as a mere means, which is contradictory. Thusly, the categorical imperative, although with slight modification of the maxim, can be successively applied to relevant situations. Theoretically, Kant’s categorical imperative acts as a tool that all rational beings can utilize to evaluate moral action. To reiterate, the first formulation states to act in a way that your maxim can be universalized, whereas the second formulation