Kant rebuffed the notion that anything as uninformed and incidental as empirical ends, no issue how sound intended, could protected the meticulous demands of ethics. He persisted that ethical demands are obligatory -- not only essentially and unanimously, but unreservedly. Ethical demands are articulated in categorical, not hypothetical, essentials. Ethical demands be obliged to be based on rationally obligatory prescribed principles, not contingent material rules.
The main point of Kant's argument has been to offer a quick contrast with the categorical imperative. Categorical imperatives do not bid us will the means to an end, and so are not conditioned by will for an end already presupposed: this is why they are unconditioned, unqualified, and categorical. According to categorical imperative each rational instrument ought to will thus and thus. Therefore the clarification given of imaginary imperatives can in no way relate to it. The very notion of a categorical imperative might appear extraordinary were one not familiar with the apparently unconditioned asserts of morality. (Hoose, 1998) Kant, though, persists that one can in no way institute the categorical imperative by a request to experience.