spects of these scholars positions and then explain my own interpretation of Kant.One reason why the Categorical Imperative has so many and such varied definitions derives from the fact that it is referred to in several of Kants works, most notably the Groundwork (ooo). Scholars argue over which work should take precedent in defining the categorical imperative. Generally the later works take precedent as they can be seen as refining earlier definitions but there is also criticism of them. For example, Gregor argues that the Metaphysik der Sitten is a hurriedly written and, in fact, unfinished work. The struggle to arrive at precise and reasonable definitions of the categorical imperative is driven by the possible implications that each definition has. The subtle distinctions between definitions of the imperative have significant and far reaching implications for morality. Paton is one of the most frequently referred to writers on the subject of the Categorical imperative. His work represents an original investigation into the meaning of the Categorical Imperative. Paton describes the categorical imperative in five senses. These sense of the categorical imperative are: 1) The Formula of Universal Law 1a) The Law of Nature II) End in Itself III) Autonomy IIIa) Kingdom of EndsAnother notable writer on this subject is Duncan. Duncan explains that there are not as many definitions of the categorical imperative as proposed by Paton. Instead he recognizes only the first four of Patons. He arrives at this conclusion by asking how many senses of the imperative Kant intended to there to be and how many formulas can we pull out? Duncans answer to his first question is that Kant himself appears to speak as if there were only three: Two passages of the groundwork suggest that Kant himself intended there to be three subsidiary principles and the supreme moral principle. The three subsidiary formulas Ia, II, and IIIa are seen to be logically equival...
