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.
(ii) (ii) Does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Principles of Kant’s Theory Kant’s theory was actually based on the following five points: • Moral view of Kant is Categorical Imperative. • Universitality: No moral statement can be valid if it cannot be universal. • Intrinsic Values: Every human is an end in itself and not a mean to some other end.
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.
This brings about the first objection to the divine command theory, the issue of arbitrariness (Quinn, 1978). That is it seems that there is no basis for what is right and wrong, God has no reason for commanding an action to be right or wrong, it is simply his will, there are no moral rules or justifications that exist therefore making the choice of what is right and wrong arbitrary (Rachels, 1969). This in turn leads to the problem of emptiness –that standard moral claims about God are empty tautologies - and objectionable commands. The objectionable command problem lies in that if God has no reason for willing actions to be morally right or wrong then objectionable acts like murder, fraud etc. could also be morally right if He commands it (Wainright, 2005).
When considering how best to apply a moral framework to one’s own life, it can be helpful to look to Immanuel Kant’s book, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals to inform our actions. It is in this book that Kant develops his moral framework for all humans, and Kant introduces the ideas of a ‘supreme principle of morality’ and his famous ‘categorical imperative’. For the purpose of this paper, I will critically engage with Kant’s ideas surrounding the second formulation of the categorical imperative, the Formula of Humanity. I will begin by explaining what the supreme principle of morality is, and its relation to the Formula of Humanity. From this, I will offer an explanation as to why the Formula of Humanity is a plausible candidate
Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not need a philosopher to show us which action is right, we already know that based on what he calls it the common human reason. This paper will tackle a theoretical framework based on the Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations as a representative for the Deontology theory. Thus, aiming to rationalise a critique for the decision that were taken in a personal ethical dilemma, spotting the light on alternative choices and finally reaching a conclusion. THEORY Kantian Deontology theory and Kant’s Categorical Imperatives formulations will be adopted as the theoretical framework; in Thorpe (2007), he demonstrates Kant’s perspective for the moral behaviour, Kant considers moral as a priori, further he
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.
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil.
The Categorical Imperative is considered a strong principle in formal philosophy. As a formal principle, the Kantian moral law provides the necessary path to moral action. However, all of the debates on emptiness emerge, around these questions of how the Categorical Imperative could reach the moral conduct, whether one can will a candidate maxim as a universal law without this generating a contra¬diction through CI1, or how moral law commands respect for rational agents as ends in themselves through CI2. There have