A person driven by sympathy to help another being would essentially not have done something of true moral worth, since that person’s will to help isn’t solely in agreement with reason—rather a personal feeling from a certain circumstance which evoked it. Kant explains that “if the inclinations and wants founded on them did not exist, then their object would be without value” (492). In other words, the action purely occurred out of happenstance, or as he refers to as having “conditional worth”, driven by outside influences such as emotion, which can be quite unpredictable. Maybe she happened to be more sympathetic that day since she recently got paid, or was just having a better day than usual. 

It occurred because it was convenient, not because she intended to be dutiful—regardless of personal desire. The said occurrence is described by Kant as a hypothetical imperative, having been demanded to do the action due to specific circumstances, as a means for something else. That is to say, if you want (insert here), then you must (insert here). While categorical imperatives are duties in which everyone should be held accountable in doing them, no matter what, so much so that the command can serve as a universal law. These obligations don’t involve any inclinations or other purpose, people do it because they should. For instance, not committing premeditated murder is considered by many to be a categorical imperative, but if it were because someone doesn’t want to go to jail, then it’s considered as hypothetical. 

Basically anything which stems from desire and emotion, serves as an inclination, all of which aren’t considered to be of any righteous worth. He even goes to the extent of explaining how he believes that “every rational being [would wish] to be wholly free from them” (249). In doing so, he implies how these inclinations merely serve as meaningless motives which merely distract people from the true motive of duty—good will. Inclinations solely play a substantial aspect when dealing with hypothetical duties.

The only main downside of following Kantian beliefs is deciphering between the two imperatives, since the only absolute way of knowing is if the action were to not be pleasurable at all. But for the most part, I personally agree with his principles, especially the second part of the categorical imperative of treating a being as an end in it of itself. Every person is entitled to respect, simply for existing. Though, the first part of the said imperative is quite understandable, I, for one, can be driven by selfish desires every now and then, so I wouldn’t deem myself as a follower of Kant. 

Although it is necessary to not abuse each other, I don’t believe selling one’s body with a price as a means for something doesn’t automatically mean that the person is dehumanized and merely worthy of the amount of that price. The way I see it, I feel like simply having the choice to do so, such as through pornography or exotic dancer, can be empowering. We’re human because we have our own conscious, and most especially, free will. Although I would probably never do that myself, I feel like everyone is entitled to choosing—to exercise their autonomy.

(536 words)