Yet, the constructivist view of Kantian ethics may present a contradiction: if morality is entirely constructed by human rationality, then there should not be a universal principle which one would need “to receive” in order to regulate decisions. Thus, as Kant rejects authority and experience, through reason and textual analysis, drawing both from Kant’s writing and Augustine’s City of God, it is imperative to reconcile the conflict between the realist—that morality exists independent of rationality—and constructivist readings of Kant’s ethics. That “in practical common reason, when it cultivates itself, a dialectic inadvertently unfolds [...] and one is therefore [unable] to find rest anywhere but in a complete critique of our reason” lends credence a constructivist
In The Critique of Practical Reason (1787) Kant attempts to unify his account of practical reason with his work in the Critique of Pure Reason. According to An Introduction to Utilitarianism. (n.d) “Mill criticizes categorical imperative; stating that it is essentially the same as utilitarianism, since it involves calculating the good or bad
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. Therefore, one year after the Prize Essay, Kant deals with the problems associated with subjectivism and his psychological approach to morality in his work entitled ‘bemerkungen zu den beobachtungen’ (Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and
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
The first trend is well known as the moral Platonism which is implied in the transcendental dialectic, and then implicated in the canon of pure reason. The second trend typically known as ‘formalism,’(the foundation of his transcendental philosophy) is an ethic relying on the notion of a law. Since Kant’s moral Platonism is indirectly opposed to formalism, by considering formalism more closely we can better analyze Kant’s tendency toward this trend. Initially, Kant compares formalism with science. In this analogy found repeatedly in both the Second Critique and Groundwork Kant points to both moral law and scientific law.
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.
Every human being has his own dignity and a free will to do whatever a human being wants. Considering that Kant says “Every man has a rightful claim to respect from his fellow men, and he is also bound to show respect to every other man in return.” (J. W. Ellington, 1983, p.462). In other words, this quote leads us to the golden rule of ethics which is “treat others as you want treat yourself”. Thereby, the free will of one man should not touch the dignity of another man. Thus, Kant considers free will as the main source of morality.
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable.
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.
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.