Bibliography Gregor, M. J. Laws of Freedom. Barnes & Noble Inc. New York. 1963. Paton, H.J. The Categorical Imperative. Hutchinson of London. London. 1967. Paton, H.J. The Moral Law. Hutchinson of London. London. 1966 Williams, .The Concept of the Categorical Imperative. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 1968.

the same for all duty in general.” The Categorical Imperative has been the subject of debate since Kant first wrote his moral works. Philosopher’s have argued as to what Kant intended its true meaning(s) are and what the problems with these various definitions are. In the 20th Century there has been a significant rejection of the ‘traditional’ view of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Leading this movement was Paton, Duncan and Williams. More recently joining the debate was Gregor, a student of Paton’s. These writers, while they may not agree on exactly how many possible definitions there are for the Categorical Imperative, they each see that there is definitely more than one conception of this term. This essay will explore the diverging and common aspects of these scholars’ positions and then explain my own interpretation of Kant. One reason why the Categorical Imperative has so many and such varied definitions derives from the fact that it is referred to in several of Kant’s works, most notably the Groundwork (ooo……). Scholars argue over which work should take precedent in defining the categorical imperative. Generally the later works take precedent as they can be seen as refining earlier definitions but there is also criticism of them. For example, Gregor argues that “the Metaphysik der Sitten is a hurriedly written and, in fact, unfinished work.” The struggle to arrive at precise and reasonable definitions of the categorical imperative is driven by the possible implications that each definition has. The subtle distinctions between definitions of the imperative have significant and far reaching implications for morality. Paton is one of the most frequently referred to writers on the subject of the Categorical imperative. His work represents an original investigation into the meaning of the Categorical Imperative. Paton describes the categorical imperative in five senses. These sense of the categorical imperative are: 1) The Formula of Universal Law 1a) The Law of Nature II) End in Itself III) Autonomy IIIa) Kingdom of Ends Another notable writer on this subject is Duncan. Duncan explains that there are not as many definitions of the categorical imperative as proposed by Paton. Instead he recognizes only the first four of Paton’s. He arrives at this conclusion by asking how many senses of the imperative Kant intended to there to be and how many formula’s can we pull out? Duncan’s answer to his first question is that “Kant himself appears to speak as if there were only three:” Two passages of the groundwork suggest that Kant himself intended there to be three subsidiary principles and the supreme moral principle. The three subsidiary formulas Ia, II, and IIIa are seen to be “logically equivalent” in the context of the whole. These formulas are subsidiary and are derived from the supreme principle. The common element to both Formula I and III is that they are devoid of any teleological considerations. There are no references to objects or ends of the action within these formulations. “Autonomy is the sole principle of ethics” This would suggest that Formula III and not Formula I is the supreme moral principle. What is the distinction and difference that allows us to make this assessment? Paton includes the Formula of the Law of Autonomy as an imperative, but Duncan argues that this is wrong. Duncan replies that although Kant does formulate the Principle of Autonomy in terms of an imperative, it does not add meaning in a significant way to Formula I. Paton’s argument is that Formula III is markedly different from Formula I and so needs to be recognized as its own version of the imperati

Some topics in this essay:
Categorical Imperative, Returning Paton’s, Hypothetical Imperatives, P18 Duty, Ia Formula, Paton Duncan, Principle Morality, Formulas III, categorical imperative, Formula III, Paton Instead, universal law, law nature, moral principle, supreme principle, moral worth, moral value, moral action, principle morality, definitions categorical imperative, formula iii, supreme moral principle, moral action paton, categorical imperative terms, notions categorical imperative,