What reasons are there for doubting the existence of categorical imperatives that do not equally count against the existence of hypothetical imperatives?
The set of non-ethical categorical imperatives is non-empty.
The set of non-ethical hypothetical imperatives is non-empty.
Hypothetical imperatives include instrumental rules, you have to use X to achieve Y,
game-laying rules, etc.
The set of non-ethical categorical imperatives is non-empty.
I agree. Epistemic imperatives are categorical, but non-empty.
The set of non-ethical hypothetical imperatives is non-empty. Hypothetical imperatives include instrumental rules, you have to use X to achieve Y, game-laying rules, etc.
Right, those are examples where non-ethical hypothetical imperatives often show up.
So how does this add up to a reason to think there is a case against categorical imperatives that doesn’t equally well count against hypothetical imperatives?
The set of non-ethical categorical imperatives is non-empty. The set of non-ethical hypothetical imperatives is non-empty. Hypothetical imperatives include instrumental rules, you have to use X to achieve Y, game-laying rules, etc.
How exactly does this answer the question?
I agree. Epistemic imperatives are categorical, but non-empty.
Right, those are examples where non-ethical hypothetical imperatives often show up.
So how does this add up to a reason to think there is a case against categorical imperatives that doesn’t equally well count against hypothetical imperatives?