There must be an objective principle underlying willing, one that all rational agents would accept Categorical Imperative According to Kant this is simply the supreme principle or moral law. Furthermore, he explains that every moral agent recognizes whenever accepting an action as morally obligatory. The main question arises here is Why is the categorical imperative “imperative”? Kant’s answer to that is first, human beings are imperfect creatures and hence need rules imposed upon and second, these rules enjoin us to do or not to do something thus we conceive them as necessitating our action “Act only in such a way in which the maxim of action can be rationally willed as a universal law”. But this requires unconditional conformity by all rational beings, regardless of circumstances and, it Is unconditional and applicable at all times Hypothetical Imperative Kants description to this one is illustrated in the following example: “If I want to obtain e, then I must obtain means m.” In other words it says that “If I want to buy a house, then I must work hard to make enough money for a down
Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good.
To start out we have to understand some of the key concepts of Deontology. Firstly what is a Categorical Imperative? Well according to Robert Johnson who wrote in ‘The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy’ “it is an imperative because it is a command…It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally…” so in other words it is moral actions that Kant wants us to apply universally without thought. Second is that of Maxims; Garrath Williams who also wrote in The Stanford Encyclopaedia said “the principle that unity is to be sought after none the less forms (what Kant calls) a ‘maxim’ or regulative principle or reason.” It is also important to keep in mind that according to Kant as told by William Cunningham
Sarai Gonzalez Merrill Ethics Sept.19,2016 Plato’s Ring of Gyges I would have to say the point of Plato’s Ring of Gyges, in my opinion, is that we are the same in a logical reason. This story is to layout that a ring would corrupt a moral person and the reason why they are acting morally is that are scared of being caught. For reasons that will justify that to do injustice is good, and to suffer injustice is evil. We have done both, experienced both, and cannot avoid it even if we try. I have to say Glaucon is right, he says we (humans) act normally because we are scared of punishment.
Again if the answer is no, then must note perform the action. Kant believed these questions were equivalent. Philosopher Kant even described farther more by using his own example of a deontological moral theory that this are the rightness or wrongness actions, does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty("KANTIAN ETHICS", 1924 -
An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral. But in further analysis, the amoralist has a more fundamental understanding of the human condition.
Both James and Clifford have valid arguments and both have an equal number of flaws; however, James’s argument makes more sense to me. In Clifford’s argument every belief must be justified. This becomes extreme difficult to achieve when put into practice because sometimes you need to believe without sufficient evidence. For example, much of the science world starts out with a conjecture and then they follow the scientific method to prove or disprove the conjecture. According to Clifford this belief would be unjustified as the scientist would need sufficient evidence first.
The Enchiridion is a practical philosophical aid teaching the reader the best way to live. Philosophy, Epictetus taught, is a way of life and not just a theoretical discipline. One is urged to revel in in the habits of control, humility, and different nuances of wisdom. To Epictetus, all external events are determined by fate, and are thus beyond our control; we should accept whatever happens calmly and objectively. However, individuals are responsible for their own actions, which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline.
In order to grasp the philosophy of luck in our existence we must analyze the philosophy of Thomas Nagle’s article, “Moral Luck”. Nagle dispute the Kantianism ideology in which states that we must submit our actions to certain universal moral laws, such as "do not kill". At the same time is important to analyze the concept that they are other factors to take in consideration. This philosophy can be applied in a specific case such as the judicial system or as an opportunity to analyze our behaviors. At the end it can be concluded that the major issue with the analysis of Moral Luck is the ethical aspect.