Immanuel Kantian Ethics

In contrast, doing what is good means more of doing what is kind, friendly, or morally exceptional. Kant states how doing your duty because it is your duty is the only reason that has moral worth, and says that if you do something good for someone, you do it because that is the morally right thing, and not because it is a morally good

In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates

Nevertheless, according to Kantian ethics, a personal life should not have a confliction with the law which is another reason that indicates that Eichmann was not a true “proper”

Thus, while not all iterations of pacifism are created equally, pacifism is worthy of serious consideration. It is not a universal moral truth, but rather a multifaceted doctrine that reflects a set of nearly universal human values. Pacifists can maintain moral integrity by embodying their deeply held moral convictions through a radical nonviolent practice. While the refusal to assert themselves as “right” may lead some critics or non-pacifists to see pacifism as a mere preference, by rejecting the supposition of a universal morality and countering hegemonic narratives of “right and wrong,” pacifists are able to combat violence in unique and effective

Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of

Deontologist believe, for the most part, “that our moral obligations- whatever they are- are in some sense or to some degree independent of consequences” (LaFollette 9). Basically, if one’s moral obligations were not to cheat, though the best outcome will be achieved, he or she shouldn’t cheat even though they may fail without doing so. The Overall outcome may result in getting caught and being disqualified. In other words, Mr. Armstrong’s decision to cheat broke Kant’s ethical guideline, regardless of his contributions or success thereafter. Morally, cheating is wrong, it’s a deception of one’s self and

Kant’s theories differ from Utilitarianism and other consequentialist theories because according to him the morality of someone’s actions and the motives behind them are more important than

He suggested that although we have ‘moral leeway’ in how or when we perform imperfect duties, we must ensure that we always succeed in carrying out perfect duties: ‘they must be done’ as negative duties are ‘more stringent’ than positive duties (Kamm,

Unless there is a way to prove that common sense is the ‘correct’ view then this “criticism has no force” (ibid). The problem with this response is that if utilitarianism does not cohere with humans’ common sense, then even if it does provide the ‘correct’ answers, it seems like a theory which is far removed for humans’ natural moral instincts and a challenge to understand, so would then not be the best theory to use when handling moral

People have to act accordingly to their obligations regardless of the positive or negative outcome of their actions. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, and it is right to keep promises and to help people. One should not lie about anything even though that lie could save a lot of lives. In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism.

Can anyone say they’ve never lied before? No, everyone has told a lie at least once in their life, but does that make it okay? Well, the german philosopher, Immanuel Kant, strongly feels that lying destroys the liar’s human dignity and that under no circumstances is lying excused. Brad Blanton, the author of “Radical Honesty,” agrees that we shouldn't lie. He believes that lying puts an unnecessary stress on our lives, but he disagrees with Kant’s remark that lying is never justified.