In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
The voice of conscience acts as a moral sensor, which is triggered whenever we face an ethical behaviour and fires the alarm once the morality is breached. Utterly, It is up to our will whether to listen irresistibly to the voice that is what Kant calls it “moral predisposition” or mute it which consequently leading to immoral behaviour. The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the
Nonconsequentialism came from the work of Immanuel Kant, who is known to be the founder of critical philosophy. Markham (2007) described Kant as ‘the giant in philosophy’. Through his research and work, Immanuel Kant labelled himself a deontologist. According to Markham (2007), a deontologist is ‘a person who recognises that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must be applied consistently to all situations’. Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome.
Moreover, categorical imperative is a formal principle that provides a framework for deriving moral maxims, such as ‘honor your parents’, ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not lie’. However, there is another class of philosophers called rule deontologists who differ from Kant in denying that moral rules can be deduced from higher principle. These rule deontologists believe that rules must be known directly by intuition. David Ross, the chief proponent of view, argued that people are morally bound to
Finally, I will bring my argument to a close with a strong and coherent conclusion that virtue ethics is inherently flawed, and, as an alternative,
He who governs by his moral excellence may be compared to the pole star which abides in its place while all other stars bow towards it. Deciding for oneself between what is right and what is wrong has always been an important part of life. All throughout history this subject has been debated and there have been many who have attempted to discover an absolute solution. Among these is the remarkable German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Applied correctly, Kant’s moral principles, specifically the categorical imperative, would greatly alter one’s view of life and due to this it may help to not only make the world a better place, but to also bolster individual lives.
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
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law.
Here, Kant seems to be suggesting that the criterion for morally permissible actions is derived from the categorical imperative; that is, it offers us a template through which we can act for the sake of the law. To validate this claim, Kant makes a transition from the official formula and introduces an analogic formula of the law-of-nature which states, “so act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature” (421.16). He elucidates this idea by means of the followings four
In this paper I will discuss Hume 's notion of morality and compare his understanding of morality with Mill 's utilitarianism and Kant 's deontology ethics. I will dwell into the moral pillars of the Humean ethics and confer his moral principles in sentiments. furthermore, I will talk about Mill 's utilitarian ethics and contrast his notion of happiness with the role of sentiments in Hume 's understanding. on the other hand, I will contrast these two notions of morality with Kant 's deontological principle. Finally, I will contrast the role of reason in Kant 's ethics with the role of sentiments in Humean ethics.
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.
The first group are known as deontologists and the second consequentialists. Deontologism seeks to establish a set of common rules for the morality of human decisions or actions. A Deontologists desires, “Actions that are undertaken to be guided as though such actions could potentially become a universal law of nature” (Alexander, 2015). On the opposite spectrum, consequentialists believe no action is really a negative action. Rather, “What’s more important are the consequences of one’s actions” (Alexander, 2015).
On page nine and ten of the first chapter of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he discusses the propositions that he believes make up a moral decision. Kant believes that a moral decision is based on an individual’s principle. He defines a principle as one’s reason for acting. According to Kant, a moral decision is when an individual ignores their personal feelings, or what they want to do, and do something only because it is what they “should” or “ought to” do.