Kant's Ethical Theory: An Analysis

Utilitarian is a regularizing moral hypothesis that place the locus of good and bad exclusively on the result, the end legitimize the mean. Solving and taking care of the issue is most important. All matters is just the final products if the final products is great then what you did was ethically right. Considering things are at stake for both stakeholder involved. Utilitarian principles sates that proper course action maximize happiness and treat other how you would wanted to be treated.

There must be an objective principle underlying willing, one that all rational agents would accept Categorical Imperative According to Kant this is simply the supreme principle or moral law. Furthermore, he explains that every moral agent recognizes whenever accepting an action as morally obligatory. The main question arises here is Why is the categorical imperative “imperative”? Kant’s answer to that is first, human beings are imperfect creatures and hence need rules imposed upon and second, these rules enjoin us to do or not to do something thus we conceive them as necessitating our action “Act only in such a way in which the maxim of action can be rationally willed as a universal law”.

In the Grounding of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant discusses the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is the belief that we should all act according to the maxim or according to the law of nature. Our actions are important and must be decided appropriately based on morality. Kant has many beliefs within the categorical imperatives some of these include “thou shalt honor contracts, thou shalt not commit suicide, [and] thou shalt not overindulge in food and drink” (xi). Kant believes that even if suicide may lead the person to happiness, it is still unethical and unmoral to commit suicide.

However, the statement “Kant argues that we should never act based on hypothetical imperatives” is false. Kant believes that hypothetical imperatives can be applied rarely, in certain situations. The principle of universalizability states that if one act is correct then another act, in an identical situation, should be correct too. Treating others how you would like to be treated is the golden rule, so according to the principle of universalizability if person A treats person B one way, it only makes sense for person B to treat person A that way.

This is an ethical dilemma, not a moral paradox. There is a logical premise with logical reasoning and the conclusion, while difficult to face, is perfectly

1. Kant 's moral is excessively compelling seeing that it avoids feeling from ethical decision making and makes duty central. 2. Kant neglects to recognize with the exception of oneself from a principle and qualifying a rule on the basis of exemptions. 3.

All that matters in the making of a decision is the purpose behind it and not the consequences that follow. For a decision to ascribe to Kant’s theory, the thinking behind it cannot depend on circumstance: it must have the capability of being universalized without destroying society. Kant believed that it is our duty to preserve life at any cost and that moral decisions cannot be guided by our emotions but by ‘reasoned duty’. He claims that if humans use reasoned duty to get to an ethical conclusion that is acceptable, only then can they perform this reasoned duty. (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).

Firstly what is a Categorical Imperative? Well according to Robert Johnson who wrote in ‘The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy’ “it is an imperative because it is a command… It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally…” so in other words it is moral actions that Kant wants us to apply universally without thought. Second is that of Maxims; Garrath Williams who also wrote in The Stanford Encyclopaedia said “the principle that unity is to be sought after none the less forms (what Kant calls) a ‘maxim’ or regulative principle or reason.”

Kant in the categorical imperative explains a concept of “goodwill”. Kant describes the concept of goodwill will being the only thing that is good in itself. Doing something that you deem as good doesn’t make the act you’re doing morally good, it is the approach or attitude you have towards it. A couple of examples demonstrating goodwill are imagine two individuals who perform the exact same task. The first person can complete the task, but the second person cannot due to external sources.

Final Draft Article--Torture Let’s first take a look at an overview about how ethics relate to both Mill and Kant when discussing torture, both having two completely different views. Kant uses moral reasoning, “categorical imperative”, which says that a person’s behavior should live up to moral laws. He states that moral laws are the truth of reason and that all rational people should oblige to the same moral law. He focuses on moral verses immoral actions, allowing us to make easier decisions that involve only bad and good. Kant does not however talk about decisions when faced with the opposite, for example, when faced with bad vs bad or good vs good.

Even though Kant makes some good points, I disagree with his notion of always

I as a theist would reason that immoral occurs because of the free will; Deity sustains some evil since one way or another, these harms are present essential or are ethically reasonable. There could be ethically mitigating motives for God to allow evil that people cannot comprehend or perhaps people can comprehend and just don’t know. The virtuous that is attained would be great significant that the sinful. Supernatural Being knowledge has not any limit, He knows all. God have been us free determination, which consents the chance for societies towards choosing to do evil, and without it, there’d be absence of humanoid choice

There were two prominent ideas from the Sandel text that applied to the ethical issue I chose to examine. John Stuart Mill had two theories about Utilitarianism and the valuing of life in regards to harm and autonomy. Secondly, was Kant’s determination of the moral valuing of life. Mill, a Utilitarian, discussed the notion of justice and that all people are cognoscente beings and, as such, are entitled to self-defense. Mill’s assertions are important because he determines that everyone has a right to act of their own volition, provided that they do not harm others.

With World War II leaving high tensions between the United States and the USSR, and both nations assuming a policy of mutual destruction the president was commonly forced to make powerful choices that could determine the fate of billions of lives. In Fall-Safe(1964) a group of pilots routinely fly out to their fail safe zones upon the US’s command base issuing an alert due to a off-course civilian jet. However, one group of pilots received a false go and traveled beyond their fail safe point to bomb Moscow, leaving it up to the president to stop a potential all-out war with the USSR. Analyzing the president’s actions with a utilitarian position, we can arrive at the conclusion that the president acted morally despite the unspeakable consequences of his actions.

On page nine and ten of the first chapter of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he discusses the propositions that he believes make up a moral decision. Kant believes that a moral decision is based on an individual’s principle. He defines a principle as one’s reason for acting. According to Kant, a moral decision is when an individual ignores their personal feelings, or what they want to do, and do something only because it is what they “should” or “ought to” do.