Final answer:
The difference between Kant's categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative lies in universality and conditionality. Hypothetical imperatives are conditional commands aimed at achieving specific goals, such as 'study hard to get good grades.' Categorical imperatives are unconditional moral commands derived from reason, such as 'act in a way that your actions could become a universal law'.
Step-by-step explanation:
Immanuel Kant's ethical philosophy distinguishes between two types of imperatives: categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is a command that represents an action as necessary for achieving a specific end or goal. For example, 'study hard' is a hypothetical imperative if the desired end is 'to get good grades'. These imperatives are conditioned on personal desires or goals and are not necessarily moral commands.
In contrast, the categorical imperative is a moral command that is unconditional and does not depend on any personal desires or ends. It is a rule that is universally and objectively necessary. Kant's famous expression of the categorical imperative is: 'Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.' This implies that one's actions should be capable of being a universal law for everyone to follow.
Kant believed that moral actions are not done for the consequences they bring but rather out of a sense of duty, and that duty is determined through the application of the categorical imperative. Therefore, categorical imperatives reflect objective moral laws derived by reason, and we have a moral duty to follow them for them to be considered ethical actions.