Kant’s second formulation of Categorical Imperative by using the language of means and ends summed is basically do not use people. Kant states “Always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.” which basically means let people make their own informed decisions. Do not use others to get what you want. Each persons has the right to make rational informed decisions about our own life (Class notes, Module 05, Pg 2).
In this essay I will explore two articles that explain the moral theory. The first article is called “ Selections from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant. The second article that I will be comparing to Immanuel Kant’s is called “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” by Onora O’Niell. I will also be giving a brief summary and comparing each article. By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory differs greatly from the other theories we have learned about, especially Mill’s view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions, while Kantian Ethics focuses on the intentions a person has before they act, and if they are fulfilling their duty as a person when acting. Kant explains his theory by providing examples of different people who are all doing the same action, but for different reasons. He discusses a store owner who charges everyone equal prices and explains that this only has moral worth if he is acting from duty, meaning he does this because it is what is right. The act is not moral if he acts in accordance with duty, or because he is worried about his reputation or business. This understanding of morality can be understood by looking at different examples similar to the store owner.
What does Kant mean by acting out of Duty? What Kant mean by acting out of Duty is in by what you know to be right within you and what is know to be morally right even thou sometimes to others it might even seem wrong. How does the Shoopekeeper in this reading exemplify this idea?
Jieni Peng CA1 “What Makes Right Acts Right” by W.D Ross In the article “What Makes Right Acts Right” by W.D Ross, he debates the about idea of duties and how humans in general understand if their actions are correct. Ross mentions that humans do not deliberately execute their duties because of the consequences resulting from those duties. Rather, they perform those duties because of an innate form of common sense that humans possess inside of themselves. One example of this is the act of fulfilling a promise that an individual made to themselves or others not because of the end results but because of their sense of “duty.”
Philosophy 100 Steven Phan Kant, Immanuel: Grounding of Metaphysics of Moral 10-19-15 The first of Kant’s essay about metaphysics on morality, he revealed to us that it is one’s sense of duty, which makes it a moral action. He also explained what logic is as it pertains understanding the most reasonable course to take, and as well as how it can only be a pure concept as it does not derive from experiences. Taking all of this into account, in the second part of Kant’s essay, he start with the idea that there is now way to give an example of a moral action outside of it being of duty.
In “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that some morally good actions, such as donating to relief funds and charitable organizations, should be duties. His argument is as follows: 1) Suffering and death are bad, whether from starvation, lack of shelter, or insufficient medical care. (P1) 2) We are morally obligated to prevent bad things from happening if we are able to do so and we would not sacrifice anything morally equivalent in the process.
The statement that “We should never use a good person as a means to an end” is false. Kant states that the Principle of Humanity is to always treat a human being as an end, and never as a mere means. Kant also believes that you should always respect rational people and should never use anyone or break moral laws no matter what. It is true Kant ’s Principle of Humanity is found under categorical imperative, but categorical imperative is a moral obligation that cannot be unkept no matter what the circumstances may be.
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.
Welcome to Groundwork Consulting for your Morals, you must have a dozen questions. The purpose of, Groundwork Consulting for your Morals, is to provide a basis for your own personal morals. What are morals you ask? Moral or morals is a sense that is conventionally accepted of what is right and wrong. Now here at Groundwork Consulting for your Morals, we look to a grand philosopher named, Immanuel Kant. Who is this, Immanuel Kant you ask? Well he was a German philosopher who was born in 1724 and died in 1804. Immanuel Kant taught at Konigsberg University for about twenty years and earned a good reputation. As he approached the end of his life Kant’s philosophical work has been considered the starting point or points of modern philosophy. But here at Groundwork Consulting for your Morals we only concentrate on one of his works, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Now as we begin to think on our morals, take this quote from Immanuel Kant’s book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and think about it, “Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law” (Kant).
This contributes to my journey to attain the good because it makes me see that all of the comments I’ve held back, things I’ve sacrificed for relationships, and energy I’ve put in were for something. Kant’s theory of the good is to do our duty for no other reason besides that it’s our duty. Learning the lesson of commitment teaches me to achieve good because I act faithful, understanding, and open, simply because it is my duty in a relationship. By learning the lesson of commitment I can better follow Kant’s theory of achieving the
A perfect duty is moral truth that must be followed at all times, while an imperfect duty is one that should be followed some of the time depending on the circumstance. Kant expresses that we have perfect duties to respect other’s freedoms and we have a perfect duty to tell the truth. The AHA uses these two duties in their discussions on teaching and the shared values of historians. First off, the AHA states that presenting multiple perspectives on history are parts of the truths of history, therefore according to Kant we have a perfect duty to truth and presenting multiple perspectives. Secondly, the AHA explains the importance of dialogue and respecting opposing viewpoints.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human.
Kant states that we have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions. There are also imperfect duties, these are still based on pure reason, but allow for interpretation on how they are performed. However, because these decisions are based off the preferences of mankind they are still not nearly as strong as perfect duties, but are still morally binding. The categorical imperative seems to be similar to the golden rule of “Do not impose on others what you do not wish on