A categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose.
it is not the deed but the intention that makes the crime.
A good End cannot sanctify evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
The result justifies the deed.
Even at school I studied ethics instead of religion.
The purpose of a moral philosophy is not to look delightfully strange and counterintuitive or to provide employment to bioethicists. The purpose is to guide our choices toward life, health, beauty, happiness, fun, laughter, challenge, and learning.
The only objects of practical reason are therefore those of good and evil. For by the former is meant an object necessarily desired according to a principle of reason; by the latter one necessarily shunned, also according to a principle of reason.
I would say that all traditional philosophies up to and including Marxism have tried to derive the 'ought' from the 'is.' My point of view is that this is impossible; this is a farce.
There is no particular Socratic or Dimechian or Kantian way to live your life. They don't offer ethical codes and standards by which to live your life.
I had taken a course in Ethics. I read a thick textbook, heard the class discussions and came out of it saying I hadn't learned a thing I didn't know before about morals and what is right or wrong in human conduct.
One cannot prescribe to anyone whether he should follow an ethic of absolute ends or an ethic of responsibility.
In deciding among theological views, one should be something of a consequentialist: the choice of one theological position over another should be, if not actually determined, at least heavily conditioned by the fact that it implies a better ethical outcome than the alternatives.
