PRESENTATION SCRIPT
(Continuation of Previous Reporter)
Good day everyone. So to continue from where our last reporter left off,
we already learned that Kant believes morality is grounded in reason, not
emotion or consequences. Now, I will further explain how reason functions
in Kant’s moral philosophy, especially through what he calls imperatives
and the two major formulations of the categorical imperative.
Reason as the Basis of Morality (2 minutes)
As mentioned earlier, Immanuel Kant believes that human beings are
rational agents. What makes us morally responsible is our ability to think
and act according to principles.
Kant argues that:
We can recognize moral laws through reason.
We can control our desires instead of being controlled by them.
We are accountable for our actions because we freely choose them.
This means morality is not based on feelings. Feelings change. Sometimes
we feel generous, sometimes selfish. But reason remains stable and
universal.
For Kant, a moral action is not moral because it makes us feel good. It is
moral because it follows a rational principle that anyone can apply.
So morality must be objective, universal, and grounded in rational
thinking.
Imperatives Explained (3 minutes)
Now, Kant says moral commands come in the form of imperatives.
An imperative is simply a command of reason — something that tells us
what we ought to do.
Kant distinguishes two types:
1. Hypothetical Imperative
A hypothetical imperative is conditional.
It follows this structure:
“If you want X, then you must do Y.”
For example:
If you want to pass the subject, you must study.
If you want people to trust you, you must tell the truth.
These rules depend on your personal goals. If you do not care about
passing, then the rule does not apply to you.
So hypothetical imperatives are based on desires. They are practical, but
they are not moral laws in the strict sense.
2. Categorical Imperative
The second type is the categorical imperative, and this is the heart of
Kant’s moral philosophy.
Unlike hypothetical imperatives, categorical imperatives are
unconditional.
They follow this structure:
“You must do this.”
No conditions. No exceptions. No personal goals involved.
For example:
Do not lie.
Keep your promises.
These rules apply regardless of whether lying benefits you or not.
The categorical imperative is universal and binding on all rational beings.
It does not depend on feelings, outcomes, or personal preferences.
First Formulation: Universal Law (3 minutes)
Now let’s move to the first formulation of the categorical imperative — the
Universal Law.
Kant states:
“Act only according to that maxim which you can will to become a
universal law.”
In simpler terms, before you act, ask yourself:
“What if everyone did this?”
This is called universalizability.
If your action cannot logically work when applied to everyone, then it is
immoral.
Let’s use the example of making a false promise.
Imagine you promise to pay someone back, but you already know you will
not. Now ask: what if everyone made false promises?
If everyone lied in promises:
Trust would disappear.
Promises would lose meaning.
No one would believe each other.
This creates a logical contradiction. The concept of a promise would
collapse.
Since the action cannot logically be universalized, Kant concludes that
making false promises is morally wrong.
So morality is tested through logic. If your rule destroys itself when
universalized, it fails the moral test.
Logical Contradiction Example (2 minutes)
Let’s examine this more clearly.
If I say, “It is okay for me to lie when it benefits me,” and I universalize it
— meaning everyone lies when convenient — then truth becomes
meaningless.
Communication would break down. Trust would disappear. Society would
not function properly.
This is what Kant calls a contradiction in conception.
The rule cannot exist consistently when applied to everyone.
Therefore, lying is morally wrong — not because of consequences, but
because it fails the test of rational consistency.
Kant uses logic as the foundation of moral evaluation.
Second Formulation: Humanity as an End (2–3 minutes)
Now we move to the second formulation: Humanity as an End in Itself.
Kant states:
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in yourself or in
others, always as an end and never merely as a means.”
What does this mean?
Every human being has intrinsic value.
People are not tools. They are not objects. They are not instruments for
personal gain.
Because humans are rational beings capable of making moral decisions,
they possess dignity.
To treat someone merely as a means is to use them without respecting
their autonomy.
For example:
Manipulating someone emotionally for your benefit.
Exploiting workers unfairly.
Deceiving someone to gain advantage.
These actions are wrong because they treat people as tools rather than as
rational beings with dignity.
Kant’s idea here becomes the foundation of modern ideas like human
rights and equality.
Human Dignity and Moral Value (1–2 minutes)
Finally, Kant argues that human beings have absolute moral worth — not
because of wealth, intelligence, status, or talent.
A person’s value does not depend on success or ability.
It comes from being a rational agent capable of moral reasoning.
This is why dignity must always be respected.
Violating someone’s dignity — through slavery, exploitation, trafficking, or
manipulation — is always morally wrong in Kant’s view.
Because when we violate dignity, we deny the person’s status as a
rational being.
Conclusion (1 minute)
To conclude, Kant teaches us that morality is grounded in reason.
Through the categorical imperative, he provides two key tests for moral
action:
Can this action be universalized without contradiction?
Does this action respect humanity as an end in itself?
If the answer to both is yes, then the action is moral.
Kant challenges us to rise above emotions and personal desires, and
instead act according to rational principles that apply to everyone equally.
Thank you.