Let’s first start off with how Kant came up with his theory and why he was interested

in morality?
Answer: The age of enlightenment opened up the question of what should morality be based on if there
was no religion. This has influenced Death of God by Nietzsche.
For more info read this:
A PROBLEM FOR THE ENLIGHTENMENT
To understand Kant’s moral philosophy it is crucial first of all to understand the problem that he, like
other thinkers of the time, was trying to deal with. From time immemorial, people’s moral beliefs and
practices had been based on religion. Scriptures like the bible or the Koran laid out moral rules that were
thought to be handed down from God: Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t commit adultery, and so on. The fact
that the rules came from God gave them their authority. They were not just somebody’s arbitrary opinion:
they gave humanity an objectively valid code of conduct. Moreover, everyone had an incentive to obey
them. If you “walked in the ways of the Lord,” you would be rewarded, either in this life or the next. If
you violated His commandments, you would be punished. So any sensible person would abide by the
moral rules that religion taught.
With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the great cultural movement known as
the Enlightenment which followed, a problem arose for this way of thinking. Simply put, faith in God,
scripture, and organized religion began to decline among the intelligentsia–that is, the educated elite. This
is the development that Nietzsche famously described as “the death of God.” And it created a problem for
moral philosophy. For if religion wasn’t the foundation that gave our moral beliefs their validity, what
other foundation could there be? And if there is no God, and therefore no guarantee of cosmic justice
ensuring that the good guys are rewarded and the bad guys are punished, why should anyone bother
trying to be good?
The Scottish moral philosopher Alisdair MacIntrye called this “the Enlightenment problem.” The problem
is to come up with a secular–that is, a non-religious–account of what morality is and why we should be
moral.

THREE RESPONSES TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT PROBLEM

1. Social Contract Theory (ididiscuss yan ng ibang group hahahah)
One response was pioneered by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He argued that
morality was essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon among themselves in order to make
living together possible. If we didn’t have these rules, many of which are laws enforced by the
government, life would be absolutely horrible for everyone.
2. Utilitarianism
Another attempt give morality a non-religious foundation was pioneered by thinkers like David Hume
(1711-1776) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1742). This theory holds that pleasure and happiness have
intrinsic value (intrinsic- natural, essential or inherent hahahah). They are what we all want and are the
ultimate goals that all our actions aim at. Something is good if it promotes happiness, and it is bad if it
produces suffering. Our basic duty is to try to do things that add to the amount of happiness or reduce the
amount of misery in the world.
3. Kantian Ethics (yan na ung atin yieee)
Kant had no time for utilitarianism. He thought that in placing the emphasis on happiness it completely
misunderstood the nature of morality. In his view, the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or
wrong, is our awareness that human beings are free (iba ibig sabihin ng freedom niya- free by acting upon
a maxim that you have created for yourself that is based on the right principles, dapat ikaw nagisip nun at
bawal sabi ng ibang tao like ur parents and stuff or else you are not considered free), rational agents who
should be given the respect appropriate to such beings. Let’s see in closer detail what this means and what
it entails.

The Problem With Utilitarianism

The basic problem with utilitarianism, in Kant’s view, is that it judges actions by their consequences.
If your action makes people happy, it’s good; if it does the reverse, it’s bad. But this is actually contrary
to what we might call moral common sense. Consider this question. Who do you think is the better
person, the millionaire who gives $1,000 to charity in order to look good in front of his girlfriend, or the
minimum wage worker who donates a day’s pay to charity because he thinks it is is duty to help the
needy?( The answer is the latter part of course para kay kant)

If consequences are all that matter, then the millionaire’s action is better. But that’s not what most people
think. Most of us judge actions more by their motives than by their consequences. The reason is obvious:
the consequences of our actions are often out of our control, just as the ball is out of the pitcher’s control
once it has left his hand. I could save a life at the risk of my own, and the person I save could turn out to
be serial killer. Or I could kill someone in the course of stealing from them, and in doing so might
accidentally save the world from a terrible tyrant.
Take notes on:
First Freedom, Second Reason, Third Morality, Fourth the relationship of the three above
Next the definitions of
Morality and imperatives: What does it mean for one's duty to be determined by the categorical
imperative?
What is an imperative? An imperative is a command. So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are
"Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!"
Hypothetical Imperatives: these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant desire.
E.g. “If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college.” If you don’t want to go to medical
school, this command doesn’t apply to you. Another example, your father says, "if you are hungry, then
go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command. (More on wisdom or
prudence and what is normally take into account on what people ought to do- based on Crash course)
Categorical Imperatives: These command unconditionally. E.g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes.” Even if
you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat. (commands you must
follow regardless of your desires and are derived from pure reason)

What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives? Morality must be based on
the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you
cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you. (Welp refer to my def. of freedom- about
making ur own maxim and it being based on the right priciples- which is the CI and thus u are now a
moral person)

How does the categorical imperative work? The categorical imperative has three different
formulations. That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is. Kant claims that all three
do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true. The second formulation is
the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative. Here is the first
formulation.
Note: He said that it does not matter whether gusto mom aging moral o hinde kasi daw binding ito sating
lahat by what means? Stay tune for the answer hahahaahahaha)
Welp there are four formulations according to crash course but only 2 are mentioned

1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law): "Act only according to that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction
[of nature]."
For more info read below
a) What is a maxim? A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act. For example, I might make
it my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it
my maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family.
b) Basic idea: The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that
you would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well. You are not allowed to make
exceptions for yourself. For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are
obligated to keep your own promises.
c) More detail: More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are
willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation. For
example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case
that everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever
believe you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted. So, if you willed that
such a maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is
impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only
way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

2) Formula of humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or
in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.”
We are our own ends. We are rational and autonomous. We are ends-in-ourselves
We use each other all the time but there are conditions to follow this certain rule:
1) They should agree with it
 2) We are autonomous therefore we should not manipulate or be manipulated. You can’t make an
autonomous decision by being lied to or being robbed of your autonomous decision due to false
info.
Other facts: All according to Kant
Highest Good= Virtue + Happiness
Virtue – Ability to resist bodily desires
Human Will are affected but not determined by bodily desires in opposition to animals
Reason is not for happiness rather it is for making us virtuous to make us worthy of happiness
Freedom- action is free if his reason generated the maxim by which the action is performed
The right principles (AS I MENTIONED ABOVE) should be in relation to the MORAL LAW which he
connects with reason forming the First formulation of his theory the Categorical Imperative whereby the
good and bad can be determined by merely using pure reason.
2 challenge for freedom

 You must generate it by yourself without being coerced or being habituated by external persons
 Act upon those maxims
Though he mentions that it should be applicable only to the educated meaning those who live in civil
societies
Those who are always threatened to death, violence and don’t know how to pass by through another day
cannot live virtuously because they lack necessary degree of external freedom but once they have attained
the right degree of freedom only then can they act virtuously.
From the question above it is universal and binding since the equivalent punishment would be you
deeming yourself as worthless and contemptible in your own eyes.
To be a virtuous person:

 Have strength and self-respect to not give into bodily inclinations

 Adopt good principles freely
 Act upon those principles.
Though he believes still in a supreme creator that is able to guarantee the coexistence of virtue and
happiness,
So summary
Rationality-leads to Reason developed from living in civil society- generate Moral Law and determine
principles to act upon that also comes from within (good will).
For more other info read below.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty_1.shtml
https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics/
http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/Kant.html
https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm