First of all, Kant 's second formulation of the categorical imperative specifies that "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. "(Kant) According to this point, people should help the hungry because of that they are humans. On the other hand, enforcing people to help the hungry make the situation opposition of the formula of Kant because there are always some who do not want to help them because of that they are human, but they help the hungry to not break the law. Thus, enforcing people to help the hungry does not make them treat the hungry as an end themselves. This point also embraces the Kant 's idea that motivation of action is more important than consequences.
Therefore, it is believed that only actions derived from duty have moral values, and those descended from inclination should not be considered worth morally in any case. This theory differs considerably from Aristotle’s beliefs in Nichomachean Ethics when he argues that taking the right action by inclination is a proof of a moral character. Moreover, duty is necessary to create universal rules. One of these rules states that we should act upon pure intentions because moral rules cannot be excused, hence lying is always wrong. Unfortunately, there is an issue with pure reasoning- every experience is different.
They are: a case against suicide, a lying promise, developing one’s own talents, and helping others (G 4:430). I believe that Kant’s argument for the impermissibility of suicide to be especially strong. Kant says that a person who is contemplating committing suicide must ask of themself if that action is “consistent with the idea of humanity” (G 4:429). The idea here is that in choosing suicide, which is an autonomous choice, a person directs their humanity towards its own destruction. It is by allowing such violence against them that that person is showing disrespect towards their own rational nature.
(ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Principles of Kant’s Theory Kant’s theory was actually based on the following five points: • Moral view of Kant is Categorical Imperative. • Universitality: No moral statement can be valid if it cannot be universal. • Intrinsic Values: Every human is an end in itself and not a mean to some other end.
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.
124). His other point is that God having a sufficient reason for permitting evil is not the same as having a hallucination. He states that having good reason for the existence of God increases the possibility that He has a reason for permitting gratuitous suffering (p. 124). He also counters the claim that there is no evidence to suggest that God is all-good and all-powerful. He refers to his moral argument—wherein without the existence of God, objective moral values would also cease to exist, but objective moral values do exist and thus God also must exist—to make the claim that God is all-good (p. 125).
Kant’s ethical theory Kant’s ethical theory relies on the principles that the only one thing, which is good without qualification, is a good will. In Kant’s term, a good will is a will, where all taken decisions are fully determined by the Moral Law or moral demands. He states that all talents of the mind, which can include intelligence, wit, judgment, courage and others can be definitely named as good traits, however, at the same time these qualities can also become extremely bad on the condition that the will of using them is not good. Kant believed that some kinds of actions should be prohibited, such as murder, theft or lying, even though the consequences of these actions would lead to bringing more happiness than the alternative (Bonevac,
moral concerns and specifically stresses the concept of treating humanity not merely as means but as ends. However, Silber, like most Kantian formalists denies the possibility of supplementing C2. In Silber’s view, C2 as a limiting condition on valid maxims expresses merely a negative condition that one never treats others as means. Kant also explained that C2 acts solely as a limiting condition. In the idea of an absolutely good will [one] good without any qualifying condition (of attainment of this or that end)—complete abstraction must be made from every end that has to come about as an effect…And so the end must here be conceived, not as an end to be effected, but as an independently existing end.
Immanuel Kant tries very hard to put morality out there on how human beings should be treated and his theory can be seen as absolutely amazing. However to what extent can his theory be used and what are the strengths and weaknesses that occur from his theory? The strengths and the main points that stand out in Kant´s theory are, he emphasis the value of every human being, he shines light that some acts can always be perceived as being wrong and it provides certainty. In further detail the theory proceeds on the assumption that every human being is endowed with reason, should purely act out of duty and carry responsibility for one´s actions. It´s totality is easily understandable as well as applicable - do what is right, because it is right and the other way around, so to speak.