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.
Nonconsequentialism came from the work of Immanuel Kant, who is known to be the founder of critical philosophy. Markham (2007) described Kant as ‘the giant in philosophy’. Through his research and work, Immanuel Kant labelled himself a deontologist. According to Markham (2007), a deontologist is ‘a person who recognises that there are absolute moral prohibitions that must be applied consistently to all situations’. Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome.
Article 2 stipulates that there is a protection of the right to life. Article 3 stipulates that there is a right to protection from degrading treatment. An example of where the courts have had to decide where the courts have had to decide which of the conflicting rights outweighed the other is in the case of John Venebles, the murderer of James Bulger. After he was arrested for possession of child pornography some years back, it was considered whether his anonymity should be lifted. The court considered however, that there was a “clear and present danger to his physical safety and life” and so he should retain his anonymity.
Moreover, categorical imperative is a formal principle that provides a framework for deriving moral maxims, such as ‘honor your parents’, ‘do not steal’ or ‘do not lie’. However, there is another class of philosophers called rule deontologists who differ from Kant in denying that moral rules can be deduced from higher principle. These rule deontologists believe that rules must be known directly by intuition. David Ross, the chief proponent of view, argued that people are morally bound to
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
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.
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law.
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
People have to act accordingly to their obligations regardless of the positive or negative outcome of their actions. According to deontologists, it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, and it is right to keep promises and to help people. One should not lie about anything even though that lie could save a lot of lives. In addition, one should not perform a prohibited action even though it could bring uncountable benefits to society (Kant’s Deontological ethics). Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism.
Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Moreover, human actions of any kind undertaken by the person is a result of the sense of duty dictated by reason. Kant also divided reason into two parts; hypothetical imperative which dictates that human actions were performed for a certain end, and the other is categorical imperative which is the basis of morality: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” Thus, freedom is not a lawless freedom of anarchy but rather of self-government, the freedom to obey with consciousness on the universal laws manifested through reason.
Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.
In society, people should be ethically responsible with helping people. People act ethically responsible when one is in need of assistance because they let their sympathetic feelings of compassion take over their intentions. Ethical responsibility is a duty or obligation to ensure the individual’s well-being through specific commitments; such as saving someone from a certain tragedy. One piece of evidence from the text that demonstrates the sudden acts of ethical responsibility is “Can the Law Make Us Be Decent” by Jay Sterling Silver. Though many may argue that Silver’s argument is invalid, most will agree that his argument is in fact agreeable.
But, you can’t always trust them, you can’t have this hope that they will always have a good influence and never break the law again. As you know, ex-cons had made a mistake, those who trusted them before might have thought that the person would make good choices, but it turned out that the person made bad choices and broke the law. So, that’s why ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. Ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. They Have already broken the law, so it is unfair to let ex-cons have the rights to vote again.
Philosophy 100 Steven Phan Kant, Immanuel: Grounding of Metaphysics of Moral 10-19-15 The first of Kant’s essay about metaphysics on morality, he revealed to us that it is one’s sense of duty, which makes it a moral action. He also explained what logic is as it pertains understanding the most reasonable course to take, and as well as how it can only be a pure concept as it does not derive from experiences. Taking all of this into account, in the second part of Kant’s essay, he start with the idea that there is now way to give an example of a moral action outside of it being of duty.
Each one has expressed the importance of Aristotle’s view of leadership and opposing the way man has been conditioned to accept knowledge through science and reasoning. Levine and Boaks state that “the broadly Aristotelian account… demonstrates that leadership can and should be conceived of as a master virtue that, correctly understood, serves human flourishing” (2013). Keeping in mind that Aristotle’s Responsibility and the Primary Virtues of Character (Sachs, 2002) and Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (1944), in order to be a leader one must be ethically just, or what you will come to find as moral development. This is the concern of goodness and goodwill for your companions and leading because it is a beautiful, chosen virtue (Ethics, III, 1117a, 10). This courageous leadership translates to Lewis’ preservation of Man, not because you are conditioning man, but because you will make sacrifices in order for man to survive.