In his famous work “The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” Kant tries to develop a moral philosophy which depends on fundamental concepts of reason and tries to show that while making moral choices we should use reason. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on feeling or sensation; rather than it derives from the rational directly. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates
The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences.
Kant emphasizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguity about what it is moral to be crystal clear, and humans are rational beings who should strive for moral maxims motivated by the good will. Furthermore, he argues that human don not need a moral philosopher to show which action is right, we already know what he calls the common human reason. Kant favours to endeavor to do the right actions over the good actions as his attempts to portray the ideal world or the moral utopia. Kantian Deontology theory and the Categorical Imperatives frameworks urge decision-makers to strive for beneficence as a mean to resolve the challenging ethical dilemmas they face, obligating the decision-maker to act ethically and morally motivated by duty. The categorical imperatives are impartial, autonomous, and strict by which tackle respecting others and their dignity, universalize the maxims of our actions, and targeting the Kingdom of
Kant sets out to elucidate what the categorical imperative contains. We ought to bear in mind that the categorical imperative is not a concept that can be established by an appeal to experience, since experience cannot furnish us with what ought to be, but rather what is. The categorical imperative, Kant explains, is not analytic, but rather it is a practical synthetic principle a priori, and establishing how synthetic a priori propositions are possible is always a daunting undertaking. With this difficulty, Kant resolves to postpone the resolution of the unconditional imperative for the latter part of his work (420). Kant argues that hypothetical imperatives – imperatives based on desire or inclination – are conditional, since they are dependent
In other words, it goes against the existing traditions, and any established authority or norms: social, religious, political and any moral principles. Nihilistic philosophers deny any basis of objective truth thus, any ground of law to checkmate human actions are condemned. For them there is no rational justification for moral principles, and as such, they do not encourage any form of loyalty to norms. Radical nihilism argues for the conviction of the absolute un-tenability of existence when it comes to the highest value one can recognise; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit “a beyond, or an in-itself” of things that might be divine or morality
Deontology is contrasted with teology, which maintains that the rightness or wrongness of acts depends solely on ends or consequences. For deontologists, moral law is not defined by consequences, unlike that of egoism and utilitarian theory; instead, moral law is an end itself. There are four levels of deontological theory namely, basic-principle deontology, general-principle deontology, rule deontology and act deontology. Basic-principle deontology deals with logical priority to basic, fundamental, or ultimate principles. One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history.
Immanuel Kant who was a moral philosopher came up with the theory of duty for the sake of duty where he states that one should do good for the sake of doing good, not because there is something to gain from it but for the will of doing good, this is not the same with human rights because human rights are there to govern people from doing what is wrong and unjust, they involve the emotional state of the person and they also have exceptions whereas Kant’s moral theory leaves no room for