Kant believes it is everyone’s duty to do good in life, meaning one should do the right thing(8b). “I will connect Kant’s definition of duty to the guiding question “How do we form conclusions about what is right and wrong, good and
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."
Deontology is an ethical theory that looks at how we can make moral judgements of behaviour based on rational thinking. Deontology asks us to put aside things such as; emotion, desires and personal attachment when considering problems using only rational thinking. In this paper I will be looking at how Immanuel Kant’s first two Categorical Imperatives help us to find the correct choices in ethical issues that arise in life. These two categorical imperatives look at maxims becoming universal law, and humanity as a means to an ends. To start out we have to understand some of the key concepts of Deontology.
Now as we begin to think on our morals, take this quote from Immanuel Kant’s book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and think about it, “Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law” (Kant). In Immanuel Kant’s work, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the first thing he concentrates on is, ‘good will’. Kant states, “There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or
In closing, Kant makes for a wide range on what can be termed as an absolute moral duty, with his argument of the principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity. Kant argument shows that I should do things whether I want to do so or not. “With the results [being] that if [I] ignore or disobey them, [I] [am] acting contrary to reason (i.e. irrationally),” (FE, 168). Being a rational being is something that human beings are able to achieve. With Kant argument, we can only determine if an action is right or wrong once we know its maxim.
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.
Kant’s second formulation of Categorical Imperative by using the language of means and ends summed is basically do not use people. Kant states “Always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as a means to an end.” which basically means let people make their own informed decisions. Do not use others to get what you want. Each persons has the right to make rational informed decisions about our own life (Class notes, Module 05, Pg 2).
The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.
Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?
Where our choices should include everyone, as universal to be considered moral or immoral. His choice would be based on the common sense rather than what one feels on the time on having to choose. Kant believes in continuacion of life, where maintaining life is a moral action. In Rescue I we have to see who really is in danger, where all 6 people are in danger, how can you morally save five and kill one. We will have to follow one of the two wills which are autonomous: morality of respect to us having free will and heteronomous: respecting others morality.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative and John Stuart Mill’s view of utilitarianism are two very different approaches to ethics and morals. In fact, they are the opposite of one another. Kant’s view of ethics is an ethics of pure reason- a deontological theory of ethics. He stresses that feelings and emotions should have no part in ethics because they are unreliable, changeable, and uncertain. He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human.
Kant states that we have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions. There are also imperfect duties, these are still based on pure reason, but allow for interpretation on how they are performed. However, because these decisions are based off the preferences of mankind they are still not nearly as strong as perfect duties, but are still morally binding. The categorical imperative seems to be similar to the golden rule of “Do not impose on others what you do not wish on