Immanuel Kant Ethics

This is not possible as it is a contradiction. In Kant’s view, categorical imperatives, such as killing, are moral only if one could will the whole population to make the same decision. With this, we run into problems. I can’t will the whole population to love themselves and also kill themselves just as I can’t will the whole population to both lie and not lie at the same time (Velleman 44).

Firstly what is a Categorical Imperative? Well according to Robert Johnson who wrote in ‘The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy’ “it is an imperative because it is a command… It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally…” so in other words it is moral actions that Kant wants us to apply universally without thought. Second is that of Maxims; Garrath Williams who also wrote in The Stanford Encyclopaedia said “the principle that unity is to be sought after none the less forms (what Kant calls) a ‘maxim’ or regulative principle or reason.”

There must be an objective principle underlying willing, one that all rational agents would accept Categorical Imperative According to Kant this is simply the supreme principle or moral law. Furthermore, he explains that every moral agent recognizes whenever accepting an action as morally obligatory. The main question arises here is Why is the categorical imperative “imperative”? Kant’s answer to that is first, human beings are imperfect creatures and hence need rules imposed upon and second, these rules enjoin us to do or not to do something thus we conceive them as necessitating our action “Act only in such a way in which the maxim of action can be rationally willed as a universal law”.

The primary falsity is that traditional philosophy professes to uncover “universal truths”. Nietzsche believes this to be the greatest deceit in all of philosophy and leads him to claim that such philosophers as Plato are mere “Tartuffes” (hypocrites). N believes this because if all reasoning is subservient to the fundament will, then there simply cannot be universal truths, only individual truths. Philosophers falsely believe that they are reasoning objectively when they are actually just expressing their own wills and desires. When they claim that their philosophies contain “universal truths” they are merely acting out the fundamental will’s desire to dominate others.

I will explore the basics of Kantianism and discuss the outcome of the non-rational beings in the kingdom of ends. Immanuel Kant is one of the great enlightenment philosophers who focuses on deontological ethics; Deon being Greek for “duty” and Kantianism being the popular branch of deontological ethics. Kantianism is making ethical choices based

An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral.

In “Because It Is Wrong”: A Meditation on Torture the argument that is being made is torture is illegal because is wrong. The moral that this article presents is that there is no such thing as reasonable torture. In “Rules Should Govern Torture, Dershowitz Says” the argument the author thinks that torture is ever acceptable but in fact it has been used. The moral that this article presents is that we need to acknowledge what is being done and create rules, and have visibility and accountability.

According to Kant, a person performs moral duty because he recognizes it is the right thing to do; however, if the reason as to why he acted in such a way is because he wanted to pursue a certain self-interest, then that action is considered evil. If there is a pattern to this occurrence, which is called impurity, it makes the person become slightly more corrupted, but not enough to be considered evil yet. Finally, if a person deliberately and always choose to prioritize self-interest over moral duty, that is, he will only perform moral duty if it conforms to his self-interest, then that person is categorized as wickedness, which is the highest degree of evil. Now, my question is simple: Is a person considered evil if he chose to perform moral duty because it would benefit him in a way or another? My answer is no if and only if it does not involve any sort of pain or suffering.

Morality are principles concerning the distinction of good and bad or right and wrong behavior, that influences behavior and worldly views. From different perspectives, morality can be can viewed as being of one 's own conviction, or a natural principle that we should succumb to by the “laws” of nature. Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche are two well known philosopher that twist morality into those groups of morals of being “taste” or “truth”. Aqunas sees morality as a truth that consist of things that contribute or disrupts the nature of things. While Nietzsche viewpoint is directed upon that morality is merely opinion and that “might makes right.”

Immanuel Kant had a very interesting approach to ethics. Actions are not always carried out as if they were a universal law, the way Kant wanted, because he was a moral absolutist. Kant’s idea of categorical imperatives is not attainable in any society. Everyone has different morals and beliefs, meaning that everyone has a different standard to which they hold themselves; their actions are reflections of their beliefs. The example of lying to a stranger at the door is an extreme example of Kant’s categorical imperative.

Paper I – Spring ‘16 What has to be true about our actions for them to be right or wrong? Respond with reference to Kant and Bentham In an episode of the popular 90’s TV-series Friends named “The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”, the characters Phoebe and Joey engage in a debate over the existence of self-less acts of kindness. Referencing the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s moral theory, Joey, claims that there is no such thing as a “selfless good deed” (“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”). Phoebe now sets out to disprove this theory and comes back having allowed a bee to sting her so “he could look cool in front of his friends” (“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”).