According to Kant, the propositions concerning morality can work if the primary principle of morality is comprised of the categorical imperative. The dialog map for this essay is that morality and categorical imperative significantly relates with each other because morality is founded on categorical imperative. To understand how this principle works, it is vital to define what it is. In the context of this paper, categorical imperative refers to commands that are unconditional. For example, the law may require people not to cheat when paying taxes. Evidently, there is a relationship between morality and categorical imperative for the reason that morality is founded on categorical imperative. The reason behind this argument is that people are commanded by it, and they cannot decide to choose not to act out of it. Then, how does this principle work? It is crucial to state that the imperative has three diverse formulations, implying it can be defined differently. The first formulation advocates acting only on the maxim through which you can, even if it is not a law. This formulation is based on the idea that one should not do anything that you would not allow people to do. People should not exempt themselves. It commands people to act on the principle that they would be willing to make others work on it. In this view, the first step involves recognizing one’s duty, which is followed by acting on the principle, and finally doing what one would like others to do. He developed an assessment rule, which says that people must be able to answer yes to all questions for the maxim to be accepted. In this view, if individuals use no, it means that they have to get another principle on which they will act. Kant asks three questions that form the basis of morality. The first question is what can I know? On this issue, Kant replies and says that people can only recognize objects by the bounds of sense. The second question that the thinker poses is what should I do? To answer this question, Kant argues that individuals are obliged to the moral law. Finally, Kant asks; what may I hope? He responds by indicating that all hope is concerned with happiness, but what makes people worthy to be happy is the obedience to the law. Kant held that particular actions were prohibited even if they brought more happiness than others. His theory is based on the moral obligation, but not their consequences. Action’s ability to fulfill duty and he posited that there was a supreme principle, which he called categorical imperative. The principle is the one that establishes people’s moral duties. His argument is formulated in three propositions. The first premise says that actions are right when people do them for the sake of a sense of service only. In this premise, it is explicit that individual may be tempted to act out of other interests other than duty. The second proposition that Kant offers is that actions should be evaluated on the rule that was behind their motivation. Maxim is a term that used to refer to what motivates and individual. The third premise states that duties should be carried out of reverence for the purpose of law. I strongly feel that the three principles co-exist. There is a need to conduct an assessment using a particular principle that is universal to investigate the cause of individual actions, which in this case, should be obedient to moral duty. In fact, the statement binds the two propositions. Concerning the third premise, it can be interpreted from the perspective of the benefits people obtain after being obedient to the law. According to Kant, only a rational individual is capable of recognizing a universal law and perform tasks because he or she respects the laws. Indeed, Kant’s reasoning is valid. The reason is that people should do to others the way they would like them to do for them. However, there is an objection of the dialog map because Kant believes that it is wrong to cheat. He argues that lying implies that it is justified.