Was his lie just? To evaluate this question I would rely on Immanuel Kant 's deontology that state we should treat humans as an end and never merely as means. After explaining it, I will argue that lying to the Vichy authorities was the right thing to do because the value of life is higher than the duty not to lie. I will defend this argument by discussing one of the critiques on deontology. The goal of deontology is to find a categorical, unconditional imperative that will enable the creation of universal laws of nature, legislated by rational and free beings.
KANT AND FREE WILL Introduction At first place in the chapter 1 of GMM, Kant tries to demonstrate that there is a moral law which is driven from the sense of moral obligations. He identifies how the moral law possibly driven from the sense of moral obligations that motive us to act morally. Kant simply implies that a universal moral law that can be only exist in kind of formula determining if an action is moral or not. He named the formula Categorical Imperative which can be basically defined as “Always act so that you can will the rule of your action to be a universal law.” It is ‘categorical’ because it is not ‘hypothetical’ or ‘contingent’ on anything, but is always and everywhere ‘universal’. Because it is called an ‘imperative’
In some respect, we can see here one of the seeds of Nietzsche’s later intuitions, and I believe there is no harm in employing them to elucidate this point. For example, in Beyond Good and Evil (from here on BGE), morality is described as a perspective which produces a narrowing of one’s own horizon. Morality, far from telling the truth about the world, is simply an expression of good faith toward the moral view of a particular group. Therefore, all that moralists do is in fact to argue in favour of a perspective which is grounded on their own prejudice and seeks secretly to confirm them
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not need a philosopher to show us which action is right, we already know that based on what he calls it the common human reason. This paper will tackle a theoretical framework based on the Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations as a representative for the Deontology theory. Thus, aiming to rationalise a critique for the decision that were taken in a personal ethical dilemma, spotting the light on alternative choices and finally reaching a conclusion. THEORY Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations will be adopted as the theoretical framework; in Thorpe (2007), he demonstrates Kant’s perspective for the moral behaviour, Kant considers moral as a priori, further he
In The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Immanuel Kant endeavors to refute Hume’s claim that all ideas have their origins in experience through his own transcendental idealism (Prolegomena, introduction, CoP pg. 819) . To do this, Kant progresses the view that it is possible to have a priori truths. To support this refutation, Kant develops a conceptual scheme that works to explain how a priori truths are synthesized in the mind, and gives an account of Kant’s “two-world view”. This view explores the relation and existence of the phenomenal world and the world of things-in-themselves.
Kantianism may be a normative ethical theory by Immanuel Kant within the eighteenth century. Kant’s deontological stance begins with the sovereignty of reason. philosopher was attempting to uncover an ethical system based mostly strictly on reason within the hope it might turn out an ethical philosophy that's objectively true and universally valid. philosopher thought it absolutely was necessary to base our actions on a reason as a result of that's the sole thanks to make sure that our morality is objective and in no method narcissistic. therefore Kantians would argue that the peace officer mustn't let the mob have the person as a result of it's against the universal ethical duties and rules which might forestall him from surrendering the suspect
Kant was an 18th century philosopher who examined the roots of philosophy and formed the deontological moral duty theory. This theory assesses the moral integrity of an action, based on its motive, irrespective of its consequence; hence asserting that an action can only be good if, and only if, its maxim is duty to the moral law. The basic structure of Kant 's construction of the moral law is the categorical imperative, which explains that we have a duty to act in the same way every time we are faced with an ethical decision. You do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. According to Kant only the categorical imperative provides an enlightened premise for making decisions without relying on any other order i.e.
Kant at various places says that the formulas of the CI are equivalent, but he also often treats them as separate principles (referring to my third chapter).CI1 and CI2 are equivalent in a sense that CI1 plus a rational requirement to treat one’s own humanity as an end in itself entails CI2. However, CI1 and CI2 (as I understand it) could be separate principles. By itself, CI1 does not specify the standards of rational willing that determine whether a person could accept a moral principle or not, it basically requires us to act in ways that are justifiable to others. CI2 is a principle requiring humanity in oneself and others to be treated as an end in itself, which would be the Kant’s intention of moral content to refute the emptiness