In other words, one does not act out of duty because we have a tendency to do so, but rather because we know it is the rational choice. Kant specifically states that an action cannot be worthy if it is just “as a means to some end.” Which means that you are only doing an action because it is externally beneficial instead of internally good. An action is moral if it is done out
For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4
Also, a single person cannot make an expectation for themselves from committing a wrong action. Kant felt that if an individual makes an exception for oneself then its consider wrong and unfair. The propose of universal law is to bring good actions because Kant want good to be spread universally and everyone is treated equally. The second imperative is hypothetical, which mainly focuses on the idea of humanity. Kant mainly focuses on that we should treat individuals with humanity.
Human beings are the only things that have true value. Their moral worth allows them to work out whether an action is the right thing to do or if it is the wrong thing to do. This essay will aim to show how the Utilitarian’s and Kantian’s view punishment for a crime and explains how the Kantian view provides a better moral theory. The Utilitarian’s view of morality is that it (morality) is dependent on the consequences of actions and the level of happiness that is brought about by a specific action. Happiness can be determined by the amount of pleasure or pain.
In book one of the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant deals with the concept of pure reason. He asserts that these concepts which are derived from pure reason are accomplished by inference and not by reflection alone. The notions of reason are Ideal inventions which though in a certain sense rest upon experience but it go beyond the limits of experience. Generally, the concepts of reason allow us to comprehend while the concepts of understanding assist one to understand. The difference portrayed between concepts achieved through reflection and concepts obtained by inference seems to be misleading whereas the groupings of understanding state experience and so facilitates the unity of consciousness which is necessary to all reflection.
He claimed that it is natural for one to want good things for others. When someone’s moral sense operates and they judge an action as morally wrong, the moral sense is not why they feel the wrongness, it is how they feel it. It is like an applause meter that evaluates the morality that is expressed in the sentiment. Thus the opinion of morality transits from a feeling to an
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, 2013). According to Kant, the categorical imperative is “what makes a will good is its conformity with the moral law”.
(13)” By that he believes that all of these psychologists have not tried to dig deep enough to find the true origin of morality, the ideas of what is good and bad, that ignoring the self-benefitting aspect of unselfish is absurd and that the advantage that comes from an action will always be there in order for us to call that action good. “According to their decree, ‘selfless acts were originally lauded and called good by their beneficiaries--those to whom they were useful..;(14)” He believes that people inherently do good in order to fulfill their own needs and someone who benefits from the action of another individual would claim that act to be good if he or she gets an incentive from
I argue that living spontaneously is not pessimistic. In Mencian view on moral cultivation, it is optimistic that human nature is good, and everyone can be as virtuous as sages. Mencius 6A/7 states that we are the same kind as sages, the only difference is that the sages have already got what the heart is approved of. Mencius 6A/6 and 7A/3 also states that we can get it (morality) if we seek it. Mencius 7A/3 and 7B/24 explicitly argue that morality is natural to us, hence we should treat it as fate, which we cannot control.
There must be a categorical imperative that Kant states “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can concomitantly will that it should become a universal law.”. Kant claims his categorical imperative is the only principle of morality (the only categorical imperative), we are entitled to expect that it determine the principles of morality uniquely. Since, if it leaves multiple incompatible sets of maxims open (we will have no basis for choosing among them), then there being no other principles of morality on which to base the choice besides categorical imperative. Assume that a person who believes s/he is acting from duty as the universal law suggested, it is possible that this person believes ‘false’ universal moral law. CI actually an imperative cannot tell what is moral or not because it doesn't really tell us what actions to perform.