Immanuel Kant's Deontology: The Ethics Of Duty

He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human. Kant also thought it was possible for pure reason to discover objective ethical truths. Kant believed that ethical truths must be categorical, universal, and be the product of reason. Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should always act in such a way that they could will that act should be a universal law. This means that Kant thought that it was best to do the right thing, even if the person didn’t want to.

The categorical imperative has three different ways of saying what it is. Kant 's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as the categorical imperative. Kant believes that all three say the same thing, but debate whether it is true. The imperative is a way to choose how you will act.

In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.

Firstly, Kant’s ethics of duty is defined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant, I method to ethics is to shed lights on what humans are capable of doing which is necessarily our motives and intentions, we cannot be entirely responsible for our actions because it might be effected by accidental circumstances. However, the action is right and good only if the person doing it is motivated by ‘good will’ which applies to the actions done for reasons of principle or sense of duty, not self-interest, sympathy or kindness. Furthermore, Kant’s categorical imperative is the best known expression of his ethical approach, it applies to a

In closing, Kant makes for a wide range on what can be termed as an absolute moral duty, with his argument of the principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. Kant argument shows that I should do things whether I want to do so or not. “With the results [being] that if [I] ignore or disobey them, [I] [am] acting contrary to reason (i.e. irrationally),” (FE, 168). Being a rational being is something that human beings are able to achieve.

Devine command theory The theory, Devine command theory, also known as theological voluntarism is philosophical perspective and view to what Gods will is relevant to determine moral status of some set of entities. The theory holds that morality is Gods command, doing what is morally right is implementing Gods command. In this writing, I aim at giving a characterization of the theory, argue for the theory and against the theory, I will present my own views, arguing for and against the philosopher 's arguments, I 'll evaluate the theory, point out objections to the theory and present approach to respond to the objection. Metaethical and Normative Theological Voluntarism Defined as voluntarism. All human beings believe in the existence of Supreme

All we need to know for our purposes is that these writers think that Kant places the formalistic moral law at the basis of his argument, that Kant thinks that the moral conduct of each person is committed to this formalistic moral law, the universal law formula (CI1) is a principle that says to universalize all our actions. In this thesis, I mainly address issues related to the emptiness charge, we must lay aside entirely the consideration whether the Kantian discussions on concepts of formal are fighting for the right or for the wrong side, for the true or for the false. This is actually a very important point for my line of argument, for adopting this claim would make it plausible not to discuss Hegel’s own philosophy in more detail. It would then, indeed, suffice to cite Hegel’s critical remarks and discuss them solely against the background of Kant’s ethics (while ignoring the wider background of Hegel’s philosophy). It has to be discussed solely on the basis of Kant’s ethics, and not already presupposing Hegel’s philosophy (which then had to be discussed critically on its own accord as well).

money, courage etc) can be used for good or evil. But the will to do good is always good and the good will must be good in itself. Thus, what Kant is saying that acting from the good will is the only way to really be moral. This leads us into what Kant

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.

Mill’s theory is broken down into two aspects; act utilitarian’s that believe that each action should have its own review to see if it's moral or not based on the individual situation. While rule utilitarian’s believe that certain rules that dictate what's moral or immoral are universal and applies to everyone with no exceptions. In addition, the idea that act everyone can do it moral is a huge part of rule utilitarian’s. Therefore, Mill will argue that my act of lying was morally right if he views my case as an act utilitarian. The action of lying to protect my cousin may have made the outcome of the situation better.