Philosophers and psychologists have puzzled over the motivations of human behavior for centuries. From Ancient Greeks who blended the studies of mind and soul to modern psychology – which explores the functions of the mind in relation to behavior – many perspectives proposed in one field have become central concepts in the other. For example, the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a prominent figure in modern philosophy, holds a significance in psychological studies. His ideas on morality and choices have extended into therapy and the pursuit of happiness.
Kant and the Hypothetical Imperative
Kant wrote several works on reason and morality, which widely have been considered some of the most important writings on Western thought. In fact, many believe that modern philosophy begins with Kant. Today, his texts are read on all continents and his practical ideas impact nearly all philosophical discussions, including discussions on political policies.
One such idea is the Categorical Imperative (CI). First mentioned in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, the CI is a moral law which states morality is derived from rationality, and all moral judgments are rationally supported. What is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.
Kant proposed that the fundamental principle of our morality is a CI. It is an “imperative” because it is a command addressed to those who could follow it but might not. It is “categorical” because it applies unconditionally and without reference to any goals or desires. “Do not steal,” for example, is categorical. Under no circumstances would it be considered acceptable to steal.
On the other end of the spectrum are hypothetical imperatives (HI), which are associated with desire. Following the same example, “Do not steal” is rephrased to become an HI, “Do not steal if want to stay out of jail.” Think of HIs as conditional commands. Not every command in this form counts as a hypothetical imperative, though. “If you’re hungry, go to the store,” for example, does not count as a hypothetical imperative because the command (“go to the store”) is not an inevitable or probable outcome based on the action (“hungry”). Whereas the action of stealing often leads to the probable outcome of going to jail. For Kant, willing an outcome involves more than desiring; it requires committing actions to obtain it as opposed to passively wishing or hoping for it.
The difference between results that we may or may not will and those we unavoidably will naturally is “problematic” and “assertoric” hypothetical imperatives. Problematic HIs state that an action is good for some purpose that you may or may not have. Whether you want to attain that goal is problematic. Assertoric HIs state that an action is good for a purpose that you automatically will. Happiness fits into this category. Kant stated that whatever else we want – or don’t want – we certainly want to be happy.
Significance in Psychology
Rationality does not issue an imperative if the end is unspecified, and happiness is an unspecified end. Although we can make suggestions that could lead to happiness (save for the future, eat healthy food and exercise, etc.), the suggestions don’t command happiness. Some people are happy without these recommendations.
For over 75 years, Harvard's Grant and Glueck study tracked the physical and emotional well-being of nearly 730 men to find the imperative of happiness. According to them, the biggest predictor of happiness in life is substantial relationships and, basically, a lot of love. Even still, the lives of participants varied widely enough that an imperative to happiness has yet to be found. Among other high-ranking factors are stress management, maturation, and alcohol or drug use.
The secret to finding happiness may also lie in the reason why therapy works. A 2013 article in Psychology Today explained why talking through problems makes people feel better. The late psychotherapist Fred Newman was quoted in the article as having said:
