A Study Of The Interrelationship And Practical Application Of Kant’s Categorical Imperative Formulae

This thesis studies Kant’s Categorical Imperative Doctrine, and discusses the questions oninterrelationship and practical application of Categorical Imperative Formulae. The main purposeis to defend and revise a traditional theory, The Four Formulae, that it is four different formulaethat are found out from Kant’s Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten; the four formulae are theFormula of Universal Law as the general formula, and three subordinative formulae whichinclude the Formula of the Law of Nature, the Formula of the End, and the Formula of theLegislation of Will.Quantifying Categorical Imperative Formulae is the foundation of discussing theinterrelationship of those formulae. Since the thesis adheres to the Four Formulae, it is necessaryto refute the Three Formulae from H. J. Paton and John Rawls. According to the Three Formulae,the Formula of the Law of Nature is equivalent to the Formula of Universal Law, and with theFormula of the End and the Formula of the Legislation of Will, they compose three formulae ofCategorical Imperative. Their main evidence and argument will be proved to be weak andunacceptable, so the theory is wrong. To be specific, Paton and Rawls have replaced theexplanation of the Formula of Universal Law with that of the Formula of the Law of Nature andregarded the latter as the “strict method” of categorical imperatives, it was undoubtedly Paton andRawls’ common problem. Thus, due to some inherent defects of the Formula of the Law ofNature, Kant’s Categorical Imperative might be interpreted as a kind of reciprocal principle.Rawls has tried to overcome these defects by quoting his “veil of ignorance” into theCI-procedure, but it goes far away from Kant’s thoughts.Regarding to the practical application of these formulae this thesis comes up with the ideaof the United Practical Application of three subordinative formulae to revise the traditional theoryof Four Formulae. There are a series of criticisms which come from Arthur Schopenhauer, HenrySidgwick, and A. Macintyre, et al; Rawls has tried to respond to these criticisms through his ‘veil of ignorance’, but such efforts, as we said, can not be regarded as the thought of Kant. This thesiswill show that whether those criticisms of Schopenhauer et al or the justification of Rawls et alare based on the same misunderstanding that the practical application of each formula isindependent and even irrelevant. If the United Practical Application of these three formulae isused to examine those formulae, those criticisms will be turned out to be weak, and those obviousdefects which exist in the theory of the Four Formulae and the Three Formulae might beovercome. And this point of view will be proved to be in conformity with Kant’s thought.