First of all, Kant 's second formulation of the categorical imperative specifies that "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. "(Kant) According to this point, people should help the hungry because of that they are humans. On the other hand, enforcing people to help the hungry make the situation opposition of the formula of Kant because there are always some who do not want to help them because of that they are human, but they help the hungry to not break the law. Thus, enforcing people to help the hungry does not make them treat the hungry as an end themselves. This point also embraces the Kant 's idea that motivation of action is more important than consequences.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory differs greatly from the other theories we have learned about, especially Mill’s view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions, while Kantian Ethics focuses on the intentions a person has before they act, and if they are fulfilling their duty as a person when acting. Kant explains his theory by providing examples of different people who are all doing the same action, but for different reasons. He discusses a store owner who charges everyone equal prices and explains that this only has moral worth if he is acting from duty, meaning he does this because it is what is right. The act is not moral if he acts in accordance with duty, or because he is worried about his reputation or business.
So, it is true that Kant believes if an action is not universalizable then it is immoral. Question number five is true. Kant believes that humanity is only for those who possess autonomy and rationality. Because animals do not possess those characteristics Kant believes that they have no rights to humanity and should not be treated equally compared to humans. However, Kant believed that cruelty to animals could lead to the cruelty of humans which would not be morally
Kant offers that his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals “is nothing more than the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality” (4:392). He maintains that people must use “practical philosophy”, or careful reasoning, in order to delineate the precise principle of human morality, which Kant later identifies and formulates as the categorical imperative. To understand this supreme principle of morality, Kant asserts the truth in two things: there exists morality, which regulates human behaviors and signifies good actions, and that this morality can be only understood through reason. Assuming that these are both true, it is not entirely clear what the ontological relationship is between human rationality and morality—whether
He thought that we should follow all moral obligations, no matter what we feel about it. Kant’s argument on lying was that if we keep on lying, even if it is for a reason then no one would believe anyone. Furthermore, he believed that if people lie no matter what, then they would follow the rule that it is okay to lie. Then the rule would be self-defeating because no one would believe each other, and then there would be no reason to lie. Therefore, he believed that no one should lie.
This knowledge represents the features of the moral law (freedom from inclination, human dignity, the kingdom of ends, etc.) to us as morally valuable, which value inspires our assent to adopting morality per se as our end as though we were that way inclined, but does not emotively pull us toward the particular actions it recommends. In “Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View”, Kant describes a kind of self-deception by which we undertake to behave as though we were morally inclined (151). He says that this self-deception, although counterfeit, is necessary and is meant to “lead man to virtue” (152). “Force accomplishes nothing in the struggle against sensuality in the inclination; instead we must outwit these inclinations” (152) – in the absence of true moral character, we can still achieve morality’s demands by pretending that we are moral.
1) Philosopher Kantian ethics; According philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), statement that opposed “utilitarianism” believed that certain types of action like this including murder, “theft”, and “lying” is absolutely prohibited and no moral austerity to break the given law even in the cases where the action would bring about happiness the alternative. Clearly stated that there are two question that must answered by someone before decide to act something like that ("KANTIAN ETHICS", 1924 - 1804). 1, “will that everyone act like that when propose to act” and if the answer is no, then not permitted to perform because not have any obligation. 2, “dose the action respect the goals of human beings rather merely using them for the purpose”? Again if the answer is no, then must note perform the action.
In Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant talks about the terms “acting from duty” and “acting according to duty” (8-10). Chapter one, “Moving from common-sense knowledge to philosophical knowledge about morality” goes much more in depth in talking about the differences between acting from duty, and acting according to duty. In class, we talk a lot about how Kant uses the phrase “One should”. We know that phrase translates to actually doing what ever actions someone is asking you to do(8e). If someone is telling you “you should take out the trash” you know they are actually telling you to take out the trash and you should just do what they ask.
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.
Q.2 How and why does Rachels modify Kants categorical imperative? Are there any problems with this modification? Immanuel Kant uses the categorical imperative as a means of living. Imperative meaning a command and categorical meaning a necessary in itself with reference to nothing else , defines it as something which is mandatory to do or follow in all situations. An example would be if a thief broke into your house and demanded you to tell him where your most prized jewels are, acoording to kant and the categorical imperative, you must tell the thief the truth, you cannot lie as it breaks the moral rule “thou shalt not lie.” Even though you wish to keep the jewels, it is your moral responsibility to tell the truth at all times due to this rule.