Consider the Categorical Imperative that Kant formulates in the reading from his work "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals": "I ought not act, less I should can will my maxim to become universal law." What is the difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives? Is it or is it not the case that the Categorical Imperative (we should only act in such and such a way, that in every such instance we could act that way) provide appropriate direction for a course of moral action? Consider specifically the response to the objection to Kant's position of the Inquiring Murderer.

The Categorical Imperative, was the philosophical view of moral actions and behavior in people, according to Immanuel Kant, its creator. Basically, this philosophy states that there are universal truths that cannot be altered, or changed, by absolutely anything: not by culture, not by genetics, not by learning, and much less by the beliefs of the majority. A truth is what it is, and it must be obeyed as the utmost "right", not merely what is "good".

In contrast to Kant's philosophy, which was born from Kant's displeasure with how the society of his time behaved, it was hypothetical imperatives that would dictate how people needed to behave to be considered moral. These hypothetical imperatives were truths that were dependent on certain circumstances, and on empirical knowledge, and therefore, were bound to change given certain conditions. This was something that Kant could not tolerate and thus fed his need to create his Categorical Imperative philosophy.

However, even during his own time Kant's philosophy was criticized and questioned. And one person who did that was Benjamin Constant, who proposed the idea of the Inquiring Murdered. He said that if Kant's philosophy of moral behavior was absolute, then when a murdered asked a question, he should be given the TRUTH, because that woud be what was universally held as morally right. But if that truth led to the murderer finding his victim, then, what did the philosophy told people was right to do? This questioning showed even Kant that there were instances in which due to the nature of the situation, lying would not be held as wrong, but rather, as the correct measure to act morally.