Kant and the Lying Promise In “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant explores the subject of duty and the binding force of morality. Kant explores the morality of among many cases, this paper being focused particularly on the case of the lying promise. To determine the morality of such action, Kant provides the Formula of Universal Law, which relies on a maxim passing four steps in order to be considered moral. First, I will explain the Formula of Universal Law and focus on the ethical position of duty belonging to Kant’s deontological ethics. Next, I’ll present Kant’s lying promise case and will analyze his explanation of it being immoral through the Formula of Universal Law. Finally, I’ll end by stating my disagreement with Kant’s …show more content…
Kant provides a definition of the categorical imperative, “ A categorical imperative would be one that represented an action as itself objectively necessary, without regard to any further end” (Kant 337). In other words, a categorical imperative is a moral law that absolute in any test or situation, and does not depend on the end result or an ulterior motive. The Formula of Universal Law depends on the reasoning, “ Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 330). This means that whatever your action is, it would be recast to apply to everyone.In this case the maxim is the rationality for doing an action, which has a end goal.A universal law means that everyone would behave the same way if your maxim was applied. Therefore, if your maxim could pass as a universal law then your action is moral, i.e., done out of duty. The Formula of Universal Law requires a four-step test to determine the morality of the maxim. The first test is to create a maxim for your intended action. The second test is to apply that maxim as if it would be a law of nature governing all rational beings. The third step is to question the effectiveness or conceivability of a world where your maxim is universal. If the maxim passes the third step then it continues to the fourth step. The fourth step is to question if you could rationally will to act on that maxim if such a world were to exist. Overall, the purpose of the Formula of Universal Law is to determine whether a maxim is
The implication of this being that in order for an action to be moral why it is done must be able to be why it is done by anyone, anywhere, at any time. A clear example of this imperative comes when one considers lying. If one lies and presumes that lie to be moral, that lie must then be able to be made the universal law. If lying were the universal law one could not lie as lying relies on truth-telling as universal law to serve its function. In his second formulation, Kant states "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."
Deontology is portrayed as the investigation of the way of duty, obligation and commitment. The ethical quality of an activity depends on good intention, which is characterized by its adherence to a rule or set of guidelines. Such a rule is known as a maxim and if a man wills a maxim to wind up noticeably as a general or universal law with the end goal that everybody in any circumstance ought to maintain this adage, it is judged to be ethically or morally right. Immanuel Kant in his, 'Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, gives the focal idea of Kant's deontological reasoning. The downright basic incorporates three definitions that are utilized to judge the ethical pertinence of any goal or obligation.
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
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.
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.
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).
Utilitarianism and Deontology are two major ethical theories that influence nursing practice. Utilitarian principles of promoting the greatest good for the greatest amount of people parallels the nursing tenet of beneficence. Deontological principles of treating individuals with dignity, and promoting the well-being of the individual parallels the nursing tenet of non-maleficence. Utilitarian and Deontological principles can be utilized to resolve ethical dilemmas that arise in the nursing profession. The purpose of this paper is to define utilitarianism and deontology, discuss the similarities and differences between the two, and to address an ethical dilemma utilizing utilitarian and deontological principles.
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.
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.
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
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.
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
Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.
(Kant, FE, ch.11, 12) Also an action can be permissible if its maxim can be universalizable this means that if everyone can act in similar situations. The structure of this theory has 3 parts and the last part you have to ask: "Can the goal of my action can be achieved in such a world? " If the answer it’s NO the action is immoral, and if the action is YES the action is moral. In the movie " A Separation" a 11 year old girl experiment a problem in her family that make her take hard decisions about his father.
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.