Meta-Ethics 2: Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

Ones intention should be to conform to the moral law, otherwise known as the categorical imperative (CI). It is the most basic principle against which all actions are judged on an ethical basis. An agent is obligated to follow the moral law, which is to say that should be rationally autonomous, which requires that it has free will; however, a person is a being which must operate under the presumption that it has free will: persons are also bound by the moral law.

The Humanity Formulation of the CI or "to treat other person as end-in-themselves, not merely as a means to your own ends" is logically equivalent to three other statements. Kant's original formulation of the CI is "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time consistently will that it become <i>a universal law of nature for all persons</i>" is is the first; it sees persons as potential legislators of universal laws. Laws of nature must be consistent, so in order to graduate from potential legislator to actual legislator, a person must will only what is right.

The Autonomy Formulation of the CI or "the Idea of the will of every rational being as a will that legislates universal law" obligates persons to act as though they were actual legislators of universal law. It sees persons as citizens, that is, persons with the right of franchise which is the right to vote. Voting is a fundamental right of all persons, but one should only vote for what is ethically right. To do otherwise is to vote for an exception for some person, which creates a legal privilege not an ethical right.

"To act as though one were a subject in the Kingdom of Ends" is another formulation of the categorical imperative; unlike the the Autonomy Formulation, the Kingdom of Ends Formulation focuses on persons not as citizens, but as subjects in the Kingdom of Ends. It introduces a social aspect to the CI; if a legislator makes an exception for him- or herself, then it is, by definition, a legal privilege, not an ethical right. This highlights the distinction between law and ethics; neither law nor ethics logically implies the other one, but they are deontologically related: law should enforce only ethical actions.