In this theory an action only can be good if it is maxim and if you can universalize it. This have 2 distinct issues the intentions that are worthy of praise or blame and the actions that can be good or bad. (Fundamentals of Ethics, 162) Kant says: “what has intrinsic value? Act only on universalizable maxims.
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.
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.
But this natural law can be used only in its formal aspect, for the purpose of judgment, and it may therefore be called the typic of the moral law…… Now everyone knows very well that if he secretly permits himself to deceive, it does not follow that everyone else will do so, or that if, unnoticed by others, he is lacking in compassion, it does not mean that everyone else will immediately take the same attitude toward him. This comparisons of the maxims of his actions with a universal natural law, therefore, is not the determining ground of his will. But such a law is still the type for the estimation of maxims according to moral principles. If the maxim of action is not so constituted as to stand the test of being made the form of a natural law in general, it is morally impossible, though it may still be possible in nature.
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.
The Universal Perspective says that a moral statement that is applied in one situation has to be apply in other situations that are of some similarity. If illegal immigrants are able to have refuge in California, then they should be able to have refuge everywhere else in the world too. The
Hypothetical imperatives are duties that people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Categorical imperatives are the absolute and universal laws that guide moral actions. Kant believed that moral actions must be based on unconditional reasoning. Kant’s deontological principles of hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives have significantly influenced the medical field.
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Kant’s moral theory of deontology is the study of duty. Deontology focuses on the intentions of the actions and not on the consequences that may follow, the opposite of utilitarianism. According to the theory of deontology, we are obligated to follow the principles and rules regardless of the outcomes. My goal in this paper is to explain the theory of deontology, which has two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical that are used when deciding upon the act to be taken; also would like to identify objections against the theory of deontology. Hypothetical imperatives take the form of if you want X, you should do Y (Frederick 4).
A deed that is morally good is called the “right action”. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s method for distinguishing “right action” is better than Mill’s view because Mill’s view is based on the consequences of the action, whereas Kant defines “right action” by its motives. English Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, emphasized utilitarianism. The concept is that “the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things” (Nathanson). By following this concept, we understand that the “right action” is determined only by its consequence and nothing prior.
Introduction The Inherent Value of a Good Will Kant’s moral philosophy is an a priori theory, which presents itself as absolutely necessary. He writes that an a posteriori method can provide an account of the “is” – a factual description of what we actually do – but cannot provide an account of the “ought” – a command we must follow in any given situation. Kant draws a distinction between conditional goods and unconditional goods. Conditional goods depend on the existence of another fact for their goodness, while unconditional goods hold independently of other facts. Money and happiness are two examples of conditional goods, which Kant provides.
Those who assume extremal empirical grounds as the principle of morality, base it on examples of custom and education, through community with one another, men engender that which seems similar to a moral law (Kant’s letters on ethics.29:622). Kant holds, then, that the subjective, empirical and internal serve as the foundations of moral feeling and also the basis for the principle of morality. However, after a short while, he realizes this psychological explanation of morality remains deficient. Consequently, he alters his views in order to essentially rule out obscurity and specifically the notion of the privacy of the indemonstrable concept of the good.
In Kant’s second example, he discusses one who borrows money while knowing that he will not be able to repay his debt. While knowing this, he also knows that he must promise to repay the debt in order to receive the money. He then questions if promising to repay the debt while knowing he will be unable to do so is the right thing to do. He realizes that doing so would benefit him now as well as in the future, but then he comes to question if doing so is morally correct. He wonders what would happen if everyone in need were to make the same decision as him such as promising to repay debt while knowing one will not be able to.
Like the antecedent moralists, Kant appeals to the teleology of nature. Initially, in the first section of Groundwork Kant seems to echo Aristotle, but then takes great care to refute Aristotle’s expositions of virtues. As Kant moves to a discussion of the second and fourth illustrations which concern duties to others, his analogy with nature prevails. Kant draws again