903729366
Essay 1: Kant In Kant’s “From Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”, he elaborates on the significance of the goodwill: that doing something out of good will means doing it strictly for the purpose of duty, because it is your duty as a person to do the right thing. To support this statement, one must agree that the the good will is a morally valuable thing. For example, my interpretation of Kant says, “if there is not a good will to correct the influence of these (gifts of fortune) in the mind, then these fortunes can over-take good will and bad occurrences may happen.” Kant believes that when we perform an action, the morality of our actions do not depend on their outcomes. When we perform actions with a good will in mind, they will result in a morally valuable consequence. To ask if it is morally valuable would be to ask the question if good will assists people in making the better decision — whether deciding
…show more content…
For example, Kant elaborates on how some cases of actions have no moral worth, but are on a level of other inclinations, such as: the inclination to honour — which deserves praise and encouragement, but not esteem. Kant states that this maxim lacks moral import and value, and that the actions should be done from duty not from inclination. To my interpretation, an action that deserves high honor and praise will also be an action that is morally valuable and sometimes this action may not have been of good will; for instance, If an American special operations sniper kills a high-caliber Taliban leader that has committed several successful terrorist attacks, it is morally valuable and right that the sniper kills him because of the harm and outright disgust of the actions of the terrorist. However, the action of killing is not of good will, according to the definition of “friendly, helpful, or cooperative feelings or
“Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness” (Immanuel Kant). Morality is the divergence between right and wrong in every aspect of life. The history of the world has demonstrated human need to attain sovereignty. In the journey to achieve this goal, people have forgotten the gravity of the steps taken to complete an ideal and have only focused on the result. There have been several examples where detrimental actions have been taken by fortunate people to accomplish their goals.
Angela Davis’ book Abolition Democracy: Beyond Empire, Prisons, and Torture provides her critique on how today’s democracy is continually weakened by structures of oppression, such as slavery, reconstruction, and lynching. By utilizing her own experience and employing views from historical figures like Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Dubois, Davis examines the chain of racism, sexism, and political oppression. She speaks of the hidden moral and ethical issues that bring difference within people’s social situations. In the “Abolition Democracy” chapter, she describes the relationship between the production of law and violation of law demonstrated in the United States.
In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant does not presume to establish moral laws; he posits the basis for moral law itself. Through this process, Kant introduces the opposing concepts of heteronomy, laws provided externally for the individual, and autonomy, laws established via the application of reason. The implication arises that autonomy under Kant's definition is freedom, and that autonomy is a requisite for moral actions. To fully develop an understanding of this relationship it is crucial to deconstruct and integrate his notions of: will, duty, maxim, and imperative. Humans have the unique ability to perceive natural law, and imagine or will those forces to be different.
This contributes to my journey to attain the good because it makes me see that all of the comments I’ve held back, things I’ve sacrificed for relationships, and energy I’ve put in were for something. Kant’s theory of the good is to do our duty for no other reason besides that it’s our duty. Learning the lesson of commitment teaches me to achieve good because I act faithful, understanding, and open, simply because it is my duty in a relationship. By learning the lesson of commitment I can better follow Kant’s theory of achieving the
The question posed in today’s reading was whether an embedded agent should have carried out the assassination of a government official in order to further an espionage investigation. Admiral Turner pulled the plug on the investigation by not green-lighting the hit.1 While I agree with him in this case, there are more factors at play here than the mere legality of the agent’s pending act (assassination), or even the life of the government official weighed against the value of the investigation. Whether or not Admiral Turner made the “right” call comes down to a question of rational response to a moral imperative, which is where things get sticky, especially when authors start using phrases like “any means necessary” when commenting on the proposed
Topic:- The Critical Study of Kant’s Doctrine of Right. Introduction: What is Right? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Kant argues that pursuing his version of radical good requires the cultivation of goodwill and solid moral philosophy. Kant believes humanity's basic inclination is towards evil and amoral philosophies, which he deems "radical evil. " For Kant, radical evil is not
Which means that if everybody practice it then you have to practice it, if they do not practice it that you cannot practice it. But good will is accepted in Kant's theory because it is out of your kindness of your own heart. For example if your car crashed in the freeway and somebody help you it would be out of their own free will and good will to help you, that does not mean that they are obligated to help you, but it is out of their own kindness that they are doing so. Many people could just drive on by without any kind of assistance and that would still follow Kant's theory. According to Kant's Categorical Imperative Holmes’s decision would also be stated as morally wrong because there is a universal law that clearly states one should not kill.
In his brief essay, “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives”, Immanuel Kant emphasizes how essential it is to be truthful and how our duty to be truthful outweighs any other duties we have to ourselves to ourselves or to humanity. Altruistic can be described as a genuinely moral act. People who are altruistic take action for the benefit of others and deem other people’s interests more important than their own interests. Kant believes that people should always do what is right, no matter what the outcome holds. I affirm that Kant believes praising truthfulness above all other duties because he believes it is morally wrong to hurt the dignity of others.
If a person is acting in accordance with duty, they feel inclined to do something, not that it is their duty to do it. A person who is giving to others in accordance with duty, could possibly be doing it because everyone else is and they want to protect their reputation. This person would give to others for the recognition, to be praised or simply because everyone else is giving. A person who is giving in accordance with duty is likely doing it because they feel inclined to or for self-interested reasons. In the case of the philanthropists, both people that Kant describe are acting from duty.
This is because the consequences of the utilitarian mentality can’t be applied in all situations due to the dangerous outcomes it can lead to. Kantian ethics is concerned about practical reason and motives rather than the consequences of the action. In most cases, the utilitarian will base their actions on what the best result is for the greatest number of people, while Kant argues that a goodwill “is good only through its willing” (Kant, 2008, p. 106). In fact, Kant argues that even “with the greatest effort it should yet achieve nothing, and only the good will should remain…yet would it, like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself. Its usefulness or fruitlessness can neither augment nor diminish this value” (Kant, 2008, p. 106).
Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.
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.
The first “ascription of good” that humans use to rationalize their actions involves the level of goodness as a means to an end. McIntyre said, “There are first of all those ascriptions of good by which we evaluate something only as a means. To possess certain skills, to be afforded certain opportunities, to be at certain places at certain times is a good, if and insofar as it enables one to be or do or have something further good” (66). Humans decide whether or not doing something is good or not based off of the further good that may ensue by fulfilling the act.