Immanuel Kant: The Only Good Without Limitation And The Good Will

“Kantian Ethics can help us determine what we must not do; but how are we to decide what we should do.” (p16)

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. Even though Kant makes some good points, I disagree with his notion of always

Many people love to give back for many different reasons. In this situation if you were acting according to duty you many say “I will help people because I like helping people.” Kant thinks that this is how you personally would want to deal with the situation. You enjoy the satisfaction of making others happy and you want to make a difference in the world(8d). You like helping people and making them happy, so by acting according to duty, you are doing what you want to make a difference in someone’s life(8b). 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

Is good really good without any qualification? Good doesn’t always result in good outcomes but can cause misery instead. For example, if I am trying to help people by going around campus and pulling cigarettes from people’s mouths and I get restraining order or beaten up etc. Another example is what if you are lying for the right reasons. For example, say you are hiding Jews in your basement and Nazis come looking for them. Would you lie to the Nazis? As Hume states, “first we need a desire or an inclination to do something, then we look to reason to fulfill it.” Hume’s objection to Kant’s principle is that reason doesn’t discover moral rules but morality stems from a feeling or sentiment. And even if we choose to follow Kant’s view that reason does discover morality is reason enough to motivate individuals to follow our

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

Kant's categorical imperative is a belief that certain actions are absolutely prohibited even that if it would bring more happiness as an alternative. There are two things you must ask yourself before doing the action. One would be can i rationally say that everyone would act as I supposed to act and two is, does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes. An example of this belief would be unconditional rule sayings don’t cheat on taxes. So even though the cheating on your taxes would serve your own interest, you cannot cheat because it is a universal law. Which means that if everybody practice it then you have to practice it, if they do not practice it that you cannot practice it. But good will is accepted in Kant's theory because it is out of your kindness of your own heart. For example if your car crashed in the freeway and somebody help you it would be out of their own free will and good will to help you, that does not mean that they are obligated to help you, but it is out of their own kindness that they are doing so. Many people could just drive on by without any kind of assistance and that would still follow Kant's theory. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative Holmes’s decision would also be stated as morally wrong because there is a universal law that clearly states one should not kill. Kant states universal laws that everyone should abide by and should never do like steal, cheat, or kill. This is a rule

Discrimination against patients by physicians is well known.  In recent years, we have seen a rise in physicians rejecting patients of sexual orientation, disabilities, patient's unwillingness to vaccinate, particular race, and religious views.  Discrimination against patients is a real issue that needs to be addressed and ended.  Most of these rejections are solely dependent of the physician's conscience and beliefs.  Despite these beliefs of the physician, patients are left feeling discriminated against and feel unworthy of healthcare.  Physicians go into this career to care for patients and they should go into this career willing to take care of patients of other gender identities, race, and other religious beliefs other than their own.

Throughout his dissertation, “On Ghosts and Spirits Walking by Night”, Lewes Lavater explains criteria regarding ghosts and their classification as good or evil. However, it becomes appearent that the presentation of King Hamlet’s ghost, is percieved as good to the people. By outlining the character traits present within the ghost, Shakespear allows his audience to delevop trust, as the ideals of the church are maintained in his presentation.

In “The Allegory of the Cave”, Plato concludes that the ultimate definition of “the Good” is the effort to pursue knowledge and the insight which knowledge can provide the blinded mind. In this paper, I will further analyze his definition of “the Good” and my personal views on this definition given by Plato. Through the metaphor of the cave, this definition of “the Good” covers how experiences give knowledge, how knowledge broadens perspective, and how knowledge gives a more moderate perspective which leads to good actions. I believe that through this process knowledge leads people to “the Good” for they must be able to recognize their behaviors before they can accurately judge their actions. I will provide clear examples of each of these points

The ultimate goal of human life for Plato is to know and understand the truth or the “eidos” of the “good”. The only way for us to see this truth is through our minds. The truth is not accessible in the physical world but in the intellectual realm. For us to be happy or for use to know the truth is only when we are beyond our physical sense it is a totally different level. So according to Plato, “knowledge” and “virtue” are corollary meaning that as long as one exists the other will follow. He says that as long as you are aware of the truth and you know what the good is, it automatically means you will do the good. We all have the capacity to see the truth and the “eidos” of the good but it needs to be developed. Once it is developed that means it is logical that you will automatically do what

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. A right defines what we may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property. Rights are entitlements to perform certain actions, or to be in certain states, or entitlements that others perform certain actions or be in certain states.

Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to

“Do good and avoid evil” is a result of the differing educational, religious and cultural influences on man in the various times and places of his historical development. Thomas Aquinas contended that general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on the great variety of human affairs, thus arises the diversity of positive laws among various people. Human laws deal with changing and contingent matters and often with singulars, do not have the certitude that belongs to the speculative sciences. Each has its own realm of operation and is sufficient that each have the certitude proper to its own realm.[ Ibid. ] Natural law can exist without the governance of a superior being through the usage of positive law. Positive law is needed because of the insufficiency of the natural law to direct man in the practical affairs of his life. A state has the power to make laws then oblige the subjects in conscience to obey in order to provide the benefits of a well-ordered life. With or without a superior being, there will still be an authority that is capable of making laws to ensure the common good based on natural law along with positive

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself.

Aristotles starting point is with the highest good. It is the ultimate end goal. The highest human good is always worth pursuing in its own right. It is an activity that is an end in itself. This conception allows him to isolate two features of what he determines the ‘end goal’ or ‘final purpose’. The first, it being the most perfect or most complete good and the second, that it be self sufficient. This end is not a subjective object of desire. It also cannot be assumed that this human good is something which all humans pursue. Rather, it is what we should pursue and as such provides us with a standard that can normatively evaluate the good of human life. The human good is activity of the soul in accordance with [rational] virtue, and if there