DUTyAccording to Hinman, (1994) Kant emphasized the way in which moral life was centered on duty (chap.6). It is imperative that we based action on reasoning and not on feelings. Duty is a responsibility, its an obligation and commitment, we do things purely for duty (Hinmann, 1994, chap.6).
The two conceptions of duty, is duty as following others, which is based on external factors and other people imposing duty on us. The other conception is duty as freely imposing obligation on one's own self, which means it is internal. The example of Edmund Ross, the grocer and the suicide examples place emphasis on duty and self-interest. We do what is right for the right reasons (Hinmann, 1994, pp.211-214).
Criticisms of the ethics of duty include moral minimalism which argues that emphasis is not placed on morality. Moral alienation and duty and "just following orders" states our feelings are alienated and it seems authority are the figure of obedience, and we have to follow their orders (Hinmann, 1994, chap.6).
Universalizability and the categorical imperative discuss the central insight "what is fair for one is fair for all". We live by rules most of the time, some of these are what Kant refers to as "categorical imperatives". The types of imperatives are hypothetical imperative, which is explained in the 405 freeway example, which means it is not applicable at all time. The categorical imperative which is unconditional, is applicable all the times (Hinmann, 1994, pp.216 -217).
Hnman, (1994) stated that maxims according to Kant are subjective rules that guide our action. Wherever there is action there is maxims. The lying example discuss the possibility of universalizing a maxim that permits lying, which raises the question of consistency with the universal law of humanity, that our action is always universal. Lying is not consistent with the universal law because it undermines itself, destroying the rational expectation of trust upon which it depends.
