Tentative Answer: Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives

2. What’s the difference between a categorical and a hypothetical imperative? Why isn’t the following ‘hypothetical’:  “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”?

Kant’s axiom that one must “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” defines the categorical imperative, which underlies morality. By acting in accordance with the categorical imperative, a person behaves morally; they only do that which is moral to do regardless of the circumstances or an action’s outcome. More precisely, the will related to an action is the determiner of morality. Since will is the only thing that can be inherently good, an action’s status as moral is determined by the will behind that action. In other words, one acts according to their will, and an action can only be considered moral if the associated will is good in and of itself. As such, to lie would be to go against the categorical imperative. However, to lie when said lie would produce a preferable outcome would be to act in accordance with the hypothetical imperative. The hypothetical imperative guides actions based on the outcome they yield, not the will of the action itself. Since the outcomes of an action are incapable of being inherently good—a status monopolized by will—actions informed by the hypothetical imperative cannot be independently moral. The hypothetical imperative is rooted in the particular conditions surrounding an action, so universality or the establishment of a law based on that action is irrelevant to the person acting. Thus, the hypothetical imperative, with its conditionality, is the opposite of the categorical imperative.