Immanuel Kant proposed the categorical imperative when discussing the importance of moral duty. Hypothetical imperatives were not enough for Kant because he felt it was better to ignore the consequences of an action and focus more on morality. He proposed three categorical imperatives intended to combine into a single central idea. The aim of this report is to prove that the first and third formulations of the imperative are incompatible. These two ideas are very similar but have subtle differences that contribute to a contradiction. Explaining both types first will make this distinction easier to recognize. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The first categorical imperative is that which concerns the action that an individual will take. The imperative says: I must only ever act in such a way that I can also want my maxim to become a universal law. (Kant, 14) Through this maxim, the use of reason, duty and will are very important. Basically, nothing other than the imperative should matter when faced with a situation. An example Kant uses is lying to someone under pressure to avoid someone or something, which we all do frequently. He then explains the pros and cons of performing such an act and details the lying scenario. If someone lied to get away with it, it could come back to them and create a problem. Basically, even if there were a situation in which you could lie without it affecting you, fear or even consideration of the consequences makes the difference. Being honest out of duty and upholding high moral standards is very different from being honest out of fear of consequences. It is important not to stray from duty. He ultimately concluded that whether or not it worked for you in the long run, if this maxim became universal, it would not be beneficial. That wouldn't work because you can't want a universal law to lie. If this were his law, none of his promises would matter and no one would believe him. This maxim would destroy itself, because if it became universal, there would be no promise. The universality of the situation seems to be the most important factor. The situational basis makes no difference. You must act in a certain way according to your duty and your will. This law can apply to any rational being in any situation. When making decisions, the physical characteristics of the situation are obsolete to eliminate subjective scenarios. In other words, hypothetical imperatives do not demonstrate morality and duty because they are conditional; whereas the categorical imperative is something you simply think and do, and it is not based on wants or needs. He goes on to support his conclusions by explaining why the imperative can be applied. If the maxim you practice cannot be dedicated to a universal law, it must be rejected. The reasons for refusal are also very important. For example, something cannot be rejected because of disadvantage to one or others; it must be rejected because it is not suitable to be considered a universal law. Kant goes on to say that respect trumps inclination and that the need to act respectfully toward a law is what establishes duty, which is a condition of a good will. The third formulation of the categorical imperative deals with the individual as well as society as a whole. It focuses on the ends to which individuals andsocieties act. Kant goes on to create the concept of a realm of ends in which people apply the third formation of the categorical imperative. Kant describes this as a concept of all human will as a will that legislates universal law in all its maxims. (Kant, 38) Kant considers all other attempts to discover morality as failures. He sees man as bound to the law by his duty, but the problem is that that is not all he is bound to do. Kant claims that the will was coerced when laws were passed and that people only obey them because of the coercion of the lawgiver. Therefore, this law is not born from the will of the individual, but is simply obeyed by the individual due to fear and conformity. Through all this conclusion drawn by Kant, it appears that duty is lost. By simply obeying the law and having nothing to do with its creation, duty is replaced by action motivated by interest. This is where the realm of endings comes into play. The kingdom is a systematic union of different rational beings through common laws. The idea is to get rid of personal differences between rational beings and private ends and imagine a set of related ends. This is believed to create a systematic union of rational beings through common objective laws. (Kant, 39) A rational being would belong to the realm of ends as a member by helping to create laws and respecting them. This creates the necessity of duty and makes the relationship between individuals very important. Feelings, impulses and inclinations have disappeared, which favors the idea of ​​a rational being who obeys only laws that he himself approves of. The law that all society respects and agrees on will most often become ethical laws that are unconsciously followed by almost always rational beings. It’s all the autonomy of the situation that helps paint the picture. The individual himself actually has something to do with and is anchored to the creation of the law. These formulations of the categorical imperative are very similar but they differ in subtle and important ways. The first formulation is a formulation based more on unity with the universal form of the will. In this context, the third categorical imperative leans more towards the totality encompassing the system of ends. Unity and wholeness seem to be similar conditions but it is the motivation towards these laws that makes them different. Unity is a personal will to which you act in accordance. A person would act in a way that they believe could become law. They observe their own tendencies and actions. In the third imperative, the individual will takes second place to the totality of the will. There is an overarching will that binds all rational beings as ends in themselves related to the complete moral maxim. Basically, the first formulation deals with the individual and how they expect actions to take place while the third formulation focuses on other people as well as the individual as a contributor. Another difference between these wills is the heteronomy of the first imperative in relation to the will. the autonomy of the third imperative. The first categorical imperative concerns the external incentive to obey certain laws. This focuses on obedience to laws that would be considered valid for all rational beings. This may sound a lot like the third categorical imperative but this one would focus on the fact that every rational being is a potential author of laws valid for all. This is where dignity comes in. According to this maxim, every individual has value,.