Kant and the Lying Promise In “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant explores the subject of duty and the binding force of morality. Kant explores the morality of among many cases, this paper being focused particularly on the case of the lying promise. To determine the morality of such action, Kant provides the Formula of Universal Law, which relies on a maxim passing four steps in order to be considered moral.
Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable. However, if value realism is correct, then our epistemic access to value is much more puzzling. In Hill’s view, Kant does find moral knowledge puzzling and holds that epistemology is compatible with realism. Kant appears to claim that
Kantianism is the name given to the ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Kant believed that people’s actions ought to be guided by moral laws, and that these moral laws were universal. He held that in order to apply to all rational beings, any supreme principle of morality must itself be based on reason. There are two categorical of Kantianism, first is “Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will be universal moral laws” and second is “Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end”. In the debate about the right to remain silent in Vietnam, if the right are accepted, we will avoid many wrongful convictions from interrogation and torture but at the same time causing difficulties in the investigation.
Sequel to the time of Nietzsche, morality has been seen from the light that it is the commandment transmitted to us by a supreme lawgiver whom we must obey. Thus, the idea of the supreme lawgiver must be seriously defended for if it disappears, our morality must go with it and what a disaster that would be. Nietzsche however deviates from the popular consensus as far as morality is concerned. In tracing the origin of morality he wanted to point out that the force of morality is not the function of its divine or semi-divine origin and that crediting a god with our moral code is but a myth.
In this analogy found repeatedly in both the Second Critique and Groundwork Kant points to both moral law and scientific law. Moral law as a law of obligation prescribes how we ought to act and is both necessary and universally valid; it commands our behavior categorically. Scientific law, on other hand, explains phenomena and is also necessary and universally valid, at least with regard to the phenomena it
Kant offers that his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals “is nothing more than the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality” (4:392). He maintains that people must use “practical philosophy”, or careful reasoning, in order to delineate the precise principle of human morality, which Kant later identifies and formulates as the categorical imperative. To understand this supreme principle of morality, Kant asserts the truth in two things: there exists morality, which regulates human behaviors and signifies good actions, and that this morality can be only understood through reason. Assuming that these are both true, it is not entirely clear what the ontological relationship is between human rationality and morality—whether
"Ways of knowing are a check on our instinctive judgments". To what extent do you agree with this statement? To consider instinctive judgments, we have to consider people. People are the ones doing the knowing with all their ways of knowing, all the beliefs they build from them, and all their biases. Making instinctive judgments about almost everything is a perfectly natural instinct since they carry out the process of immediate awareness and knowledge that does not associate with reasoning or analysis.
Mill and Kant have opposite idea and they support different moral philosophies. Mill exactly suppose the idea of social thinking, namely he claims that everyone attach an importance to other human beings. However, Kant considers that selfishness reflect people’s characteristics, in other words, each person should pay attention to themselves not others, because the most important thing for them is themselves. Kant also highlight that people can only behave in a good manner, if they have good will. In other words, Kant attach an importance to people’s instinct or characteristics, Mill gives weight to promoting happiness and dissolution of the pain.
Moral subjectivism is the first order normative view that everyone does what they think they should do at the moment. On examination, moral subjectivism ceases to be plausible as it is plainly a first-order view (Mackie, 648). However, in the second-order view thesis, it is quite independent under consideration. Something humorous to note is that the second-order views compete for the name “subjectivism” on the basis of moral statements and terms. Normally, what is often referred to moral subjectivism is the doctrine that, for example, “the action is right” which means that I approve the action.