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
This knowledge represents the features of the moral law (freedom from inclination, human dignity, the kingdom of ends, etc.) to us as morally valuable, which value inspires our assent to adopting morality per se as our end as though we were that way inclined, but does not emotively pull us toward the particular actions it recommends. In “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View”, Kant describes a kind of self-deception by which we undertake to behave as though we were morally inclined (151). He says that this self-deception, although counterfeit, is necessary and is meant to “lead man to virtue” (152). “Force accomplishes nothing in the struggle against sensuality in the inclination; instead we must outwit these inclinations” (152) – in the absence of true moral character, we can still achieve morality’s demands by pretending that we are moral.
Although I do understand that it is very difficult to know the true motives of an individual making a decision, I think it is less subjective than it is deemed to be. I peculiarly favor Immanuel Kant’s School of thought in the Deontological wing of Ethics. Kant’s moral philosophy is “Do the right thing, Do it because it is the right thing to do”. Kant believed that we should act from a sense of moral duty and act with the correct motives, without any regard to the consequences of our action. He emphasized that the motives would be morally correct if they adhered to two rules.
Those who assume extremal empirical grounds as the principle of morality, base it on examples of custom and education, through community with one another, men engender that which seems similar to a moral law (Kant’s letters on ethics.29:622). Kant holds, then, that the subjective, empirical and internal serve as the foundations of moral feeling and also the basis for the principle of morality. However, after a short while, he realizes this psychological explanation of morality remains deficient. Consequently, he alters his views in order to essentially rule out obscurity and specifically the notion of the privacy of the indemonstrable concept of the good. Therefore, one year after the Prize Essay, Kant deals with the problems associated with subjectivism and his psychological approach to morality in his work entitled ‘bemerkungen zu den beobachtungen’ (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and
Immanuel kant wrote his famous ethical treatise foundations of the metaphysics of morals before the rise of English utilitarianism, but he was well equinted with the idea of founding morality on the feelings of pleasure and pain, rather than on reason . Firstly, Kant was of the view in related to the ideas of Jeremy becham and Stuart mill and both of them focused on the pleasure is coming. Kant then worked on his theory and focused on reason. Moral obligations thus have nothing to do with consequences, in Kant’s view but arises solely from a moral law that is binding on all rational beings. The Main Features of Kant’s Theory : The main features of the ethical theory presented in the foundation can be illustrated by considering one of Kant’s own example.
Kant’s transcendental idealism is kind of empirical realism in that he holds the manifestations of objects have objective validity, that is, the object is not given experiential characteristics other than a thing in it, that allowing for lawful experience is the essential expression of the transcendental aesthetic which Kant emphasizes in Groundwork and throughout his moral
From the point of view of the divine command ethics, these passages should be more convincing than the utterance of Wojciech Giertych. Similarly to the followers of the divine command ethics, Kant strived to formulate a consistent set of ethical rules. However, Kant argued that ethical maxims should be derived from reason and not given by God. Believing that all humans were rational beings, Kant concluded that there is no need for depending on divine commands, as the universal moral rules that he believed existed could be derived through common sense. Kant called these maxims categorical imperatives and believed that they should fulfill the following requirements: They should be determined by reason.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory differs greatly from the other theories we have learned about, especially Mill’s view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions, while Kantian Ethics focuses on the intentions a person has before they act, and if they are fulfilling their duty as a person when acting. Kant explains his theory by providing examples of different people who are all doing the same action, but for different reasons. He discusses a store owner who charges everyone equal prices and explains that this only has moral worth if he is acting from duty, meaning he does this because it is what is right. The act is not moral if he acts in accordance with duty, or because he is worried about his reputation or business.
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. 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.