Explain the difference between what kant calls a categorical imperative and a counsel of prudence

The difference between a categorical imperative and a counsel of prudence is that categorical imperative contains no if's. It simply tells to do something or not to do something. Kant thinks that we will agree that moral rules have this form. While the counsel of prudence Kant calls it hypothetical imperative that cit an end other than happiness. It is a moral rule that cannot be the same as rules that makes us happy.

When writing, you should mention all the tyrannical deeds that the king has committed against the people of the colonies. It's easy if you take Paine's texts as a source because they are full of evidence. The simplest can be that Monarchies are bad because all men are equal so a king cannot rule since he is equal to all other people.

Explanation:

Hope this helps:)