When two groups of people coexist it is possible that one group can become subjected by the other. But is it possible for the superior society based on reason to do such things? In Kant’s ideal a “kingdom of ends” the kingdom is ruled by Kantian rational human beings. The question then becomes ‘what is the purpose of non-rational beings?’ What rights would be given to the hodgepodge of living beings? 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
…show more content…
This is often confused with the golden rule of “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.” However in Kantianism the rule is “treat people as they ought to be treated” (Burnor, 162). It then becomes ones duty to treat people as they ought to be treated and not base decisions on any one individual’s experiences. Kantianism is against “a posteriori” or actions that come from experience. As experiences are not universal and would create inconsistencies among people making moral choices, Kant is against making choices dependent on experiences. For example, one individual who helps a fallen old man back to his feet may be attacked for assisting; Another individual who helps a different old man to his feet might be offered monetary compensation for his or her service. The first individual would be less inclined to help a fallen old man for fear of another attack, while the second individual would help the old man to receive the financial benefits. Kant believes it is the duty of each individual to help out the old man regardless of experience. The first man acting out of fear is not acting morally because he is being controlled by his own phobia. The second man is acting for financial benefit and is being controlled by outside forces. This example proves experiences lead to amoral …show more content…
With people being reduced to the same level of moral integrity as plants and animals, it is not difficult to predict the outcome. The whole group of have-nots would be transformed into a factory of servitude and sacrifice. Animals and plants for instance, are treated as inferior beings being used as pets (houseplant), put on display, hunted, and harvested for the betterment of mankind. With non-rational beings placed on the same tier as plants and animals, then it’s possible that non- rational beings will be subjected to the same conditions. However the Kantians could choose to give rights to these beings and treat them as equals. Their duty could become ensuring the rights of the non-rational beings. However, in a society totally dominated by rationals, it is impossible to give non-rationals equal rights unless the non- rationals establish a power on the kingdom. If that were to happen, it would no longer be a kingdom of ends but just another kingdom. The kingdom of ends must place rights of the rationalist above others. Humanity has the goal to treat everyone as an equal and not as a subject but in the kingdom of ends the rational have more rights than the other
In Kantian terms, there lies a set of moral principles that is universal and continues to apply to all humankind no matter the context or situation. In the minds of someone who believes in this ethical theory, their decision is always motivated by goodwill and that end never justifies the means, it is all about duty. A person who stands with the supreme court decision and is in favor of banning abortion across all states is someone who believes in the kantian ethics
One example that Ross gives is the keeping of a promise an individual made to someone not because it will promote the most happiness at the end, but because the individual had already made the promise and feels an innate duty to uphold it (128). Ross argues that people possess common sense because it is what lets an individual realize that they have more than one “conditional” duty in a situation. It allows that individual to favor the action of one duty more over the action of the
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
“Therefore, no one rational or autonomous creature should be treated as mere means for the enjoyment or even the happiness of another” (O’Neil 6). We have a perfect duty to others, and that includes not using them as mere means. In Kant’s eyes, Jim would be using the Indian as a mere means. The man would not be able to truly consent to an “offer he can’t refuse” (O’Neil 3). Kant values human life because they are rational beings.
“An irrational society is a society of moral cowards—of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles, and goals. But since men have to act, so long as they live, such as a society is read to be taken over by anyone willing to set its direction. The initiative can come from only two types of men: either from the man who is willing to assume the responsibility of asserting rational values--- or from the thug who is not troubled by questions of responsibility.” Ayn Rand explains that in order to survive in an irrational society, you have to overcome the fear of moral judgement, and let that be your responsibility. In “Anthem”, Equality 7-2521 understand the evils of an irrational society—which is fear of moral judgement.
He synthesized early modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. The fundamental idea of Kant 's “critical philosophy” — especially in his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) — is human autonomy. He argues that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality. Therefore, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical
Analysis: Societies for centuries have searched for an answer to the enduring problem: “Who should rule us?” This question has been one of the central debates in political philosophy as well as in
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.
Since “any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate virtue”(1098a15), a good performance of function (which is a display of goodness) is virtuous. For example, a good lyre player is a virtuous player. In the previous part, he concludes that function of humans is rational activity, or the soul acting in accordance to reason. In humans’ case, a good performance of rational activity is thus a display of virtue. For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life.
This book is the foundation of the entire topic, with many propositions used to answer it. Do men act justly because fear of higher power, or just because it is the ‘right’ thing for men to do? Justice is considered the most fundamental ethical and political ideas. Platos political view of democratic government
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
Otto Adolf Eichmann was one of the most important members of the Nazi Party who was accused of crimes against the Jewish people and humanity during World War 2. After the war, he went to Argentina to escape prosecution but was captured there by Israeli agents and was transferred to Israel to be judged. During the trial, Eichmann’s defense was based on Kant’s duty-based ethical theory and categorical Imperative since he overstated many times that he was only following orders. By enouncing Kantian ethical theory, Eichmann acquitted himself from moral guilt. Kant’s categorical imperative as known as The Formula Of The End
For example, your parents gave you present for your birthday but you don’t like it, in this situation not telling that you don’t like the present will give out maximum utility as it makes them happy. According to Kantianism, we should never treat anyone merely as a mean, which means that you should tell the truth even if it hurts other
To simplify this, a way to say this is to treat humanity as rational beings, and not as a thing. Basically says that if we treat someone as a thing/mean you are disrespecting him, and that’s morally wrong. For example, if a person bribes you, and you don’t have any options but to accept the bribe, then you are a human being capable of making your own decisions because someone is threatening causes you aren’t able to make your own independent decision. However, based on Kant’s theory, bribery is morally wrong
He says that one must act not only in accordance to duty, but for the sake of duty However, According to the Utilitarianism, Mill emphasizes that the actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness Immanuel Kant is the founder of the Kantian branch of ethics and morality, and his theories are personally my favorite theory of ethics so far. According to the utilitarianism, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. However, in Kant’s moral philosophy, people