ipl-logo

Comparing Kant's Explanation Of Categorical Imperative

633 Words3 Pages

“Categorical imperative may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action.”[1].According to Kant, “human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive.” [1] He defined an imperative “as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.”[1]It shows the relationship between rational objective rules and will which, as far as its subjective nature is concerned, is not necessarily decided by the rules. It involves meaning of compulsoriness, obligation. It is a practical rule through which, as far as action subject is concerned , his casual action is turned into necessary action. Its basic …show more content…

A hypothetical imperative is represented in the form of if-clause:“If you want x in the circumstance C, do A. “(Page 448, [2]). It involves the relationship between end and action. It regards action as means for end. The action is inconsistent with end. It can’t become moral law. By contrast, According to categorical imperative, End directly determines action and the end is not external to the action. It stands for moral law. Hypothetical imperative is perceptual, it results from pursuing pleasures and avoiding pains in life while categorical imperative is rational and there is no relationship between action and end; it’s unconditional, not constrained by desire, interests, etc. or …show more content…

If you are making a lying promise, then you are acting not upon a universal law which abstract from everything empirical. The reason for you not to keep your promise may be that you are concerned with some unpleasant consequences that might be brought about by keeping your promise which shows you are controlled by your inclinations, your desires or your personal interests. And all these are just contrary to the moral law. And it is the same with the the second case: It is wrong not to offer help others. You don’t offer help to others not only just because of the above reasons. There is another very important point: you neglect your duty. Helping people in need is your duty. “Duty is the necessity of an act done out of respect for the law.”(Page 447,[2])” Besides, not offering your help to others means not respecting the law. “Respect for law is a purely rational motivation, quite different from and possibly opposed to even the strongest desire. “(Page 447,[2]). Not offering help to others suggests that irrational motivation outweighs sense of duty, and it is an example of showing no respect for law. So I think Kant is right to say that neither of these actions confirms to the moral

Show More
Related

  • Can The Law Make Us Be Decent Summary

    473 Words  | 2 Pages

    People who don’t help others should be punished because they don’t fulfill their ethical responsibility and someone could lose their life because of it. If we see someone who needs help, do we stop? There is so much suffering and poverty out there. In the article “ Can the law make us be decent” by Jay Sterling Silver, the author have talked about how oblivious people should get punished for not required to do anything to help when someone is in danger. People should be punished for not assisting others in an emergency because someone life will be at risk if there’s no help.

    Read More

  • Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of Morals Summary

    1090 Words  | 5 Pages

    The implication of this being that in order for an action to be moral why it is done must be able to be why it is done by anyone, anywhere, at any time. A clear example of this imperative comes when one considers lying. If one lies and presumes that lie to be moral, that lie must then be able to be made the universal law. If lying were the universal law one could not lie as lying relies on truth-telling as universal law to serve its function. In his second formulation, Kant states "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."

    Read More

  • Eugene Debs Brother's Keeper Analysis

    636 Words  | 3 Pages

    People tend to help others due to the fact that they want to but they feel like they have to. It is not the moral obligation that controls the problem but understanding it compels to assist

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Provides Us With A Moral Challenge

    1522 Words  | 7 Pages

    If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, we should do it. But I do not agree with the fact that we are “obligated” to do it; meaning that if we do not do it, it is wrong. It is not wrong to not give to the needy, if one does not feel

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Groundwork For The Metaphysic Of Moral

    735 Words  | 3 Pages

    On the other hand, if you were acting from duty, you may say “I will help people because I know I should help people.” As we know, “should” means do it. It this situation it is almost as if you may feel like you are forcing yourself to do something because you know you should and it will benefit someone else. Even though you may not want to donate to charity, you know you are supposed to because it is the right thing to do and you should always do the right thing, even if it does not benefit you in any

    Read More

  • Self Sacrifice In The Book Night By Elie Wiesel

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    People are often think of themselves and base their actions on what would harbor the best outcomes for them. It is rare in which people would go out of their way to help other even when it won’t harm them to do so. Therefore, it goes to show, based on that pattern, that the

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of Famine, Affluence, And Morality By Peter Singer

    971 Words  | 4 Pages

    In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that some morally good actions, such as donating to relief funds and charitable organizations, should be duties. His argument is as follows: 1) Suffering and death are bad, whether from starvation, lack of shelter, or insufficient medical care. (P1) 2) We are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening if we are able to do so and we would not sacrifice anything morally equivalent in the process.

    Read More

  • On A Supposed Right To Lie From Altruistic Motives Analysis

    180 Words  | 1 Pages

    In his brief essay, “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives”, Immanuel Kant emphasizes how essential it is to be truthful and how our duty to be truthful outweighs any other duties we have to ourselves to ourselves or to humanity. Altruistic can be described as a genuinely moral act. People who are altruistic take action for the benefit of others and deem other people’s interests more important than their own interests. Kant believes that people should always do what is right, no matter what the outcome holds. I affirm that Kant believes praising truthfulness above all other duties because he believes it is morally wrong to hurt the dignity of others.

    Read More

  • Ethics In The Kitty Genovese Case

    455 Words  | 2 Pages

    With this being said, an informed individual may be less driven to help another person due to the fact that they want to avoid a run in with the law themselves. When it comes to morality, it is not contingent upon ones religious background or the laws that govern the state or province in which they live, rather ones morality is contingent upon the guiding principles that govern said individuals life. For example, when it comes to the scenario described above, ones morals may tell them that intervening and placing themselves in harms way is not justifiable and surpasses practicability. Whereas another individuals morals may tell them to adhere to the ideal of universalizability, which means that they a lot the same action to another that they would want done onto them and thusly they would get involved. With all of these things in mind, ones morality is not strictly limited to their religion or laws but rather what they find to be permissible and

    Read More

  • Moral Action In Groundhog Day

    1069 Words  | 5 Pages

    He wanted to help people regardless of the result. For me, I would always consider doing whatever that gives good consequences, such as cheering up my friend. However, if it is for bad intentions, like I cheer up my friend to let them do things in my favor, it is immoral. On the other hand, if I do something for the right reasons, such as I tried to helped my friend to fix the car because I wanted to help, but the problem was not resolved at the end, my action would still be moral because although the result is bad, it started with a good reason. It is important for one to act with good intentions since one may “lives according to duty, but not from duty” because one might be acting for “a selfish purpose” (Kant 8).

    Read More

  • Understand The Difference Between Categorical Imperative And Hypothetical

    257 Words  | 2 Pages

    In order to under the ethics of Kant, it is important to understand the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is an action that has no moral basis or obligation and is based (as shown in its name) on a hypothesis. These actions are set up with a cause-effect, action-consequence model by using the hypothetical form of “if this is done, then this will happen”. Due to this a person only decides to do anything with a certain end goal in mind. For example, I don’t do sprints just to do sprints.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1222 Words  | 5 Pages

    I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."

    Read More

  • Basic Principle Deontological Analysis

    929 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.

    Read More

  • Loyno's Argumentative Essay: A Sense Of Duty

    416 Words  | 2 Pages

    Now if that same guy holds open doors for anyone he sees that are behind him, he is acting out a sense of duty. Actions are encouraged by desire from those that are done on value (Loyno.edu). For example, I could help someone that fell down and my friend would ask me why I did it. They can say that I got nothing out of it and it probably took up

    Read More

  • Criminally Liable For Omission Essay

    2952 Words  | 12 Pages

    He may only merely have a moral obligation to help but he cannot be charged with murder or battery. Basically, B cannot be prosecuted for his failure to act. Although this is the general principle, it is subject to exceptions. Where a person is under a duty to act and he fails to do so he is deemed to be criminally liable for the omission. The most important

    Read More

More about Comparing Kant's Explanation Of Categorical Imperative

Open Document