2074 Final Notes Essay

According to Kant, we can control the will and meaning behind our actions. The morality of an action should be assessed by what the motivation of the action is. The moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. This is due to the fact that , for Kant, what the motive behind your

     .Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone everywhere. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be

According to the Kantianism approach the right or wrong action is not taken as a concern of consequence because you cannot control them. It is whether you can fulfill your duty. Whatever you are about to do, and why you are going to do it, is your maxim. Kant explains that the only thing that has intrinsic value would be the goodwill, and he believes that the goodwill is the only good without limits. Moral decisions are the structure of the person by good reasons, features, and the appreciation of the law. A person would do an action not because of what that action produces, in the sense of past experiences, but that they understand by reasoning that the action is the right thing to do. The standard that Kant uses to explain efficient motives and is exercised by everyone is called categorical imperative. It gives us a way to analyze moral actions and make moral reasoning’s. It is used to decide if an action is morally important and is the basics to fulfill universality and rationality. Kant using the Principle of Universalizability to determine whether we are fair and consistent. Below I will demonstrate how it connects to my

A few factors assume a part in the accomplishment of an organization that are past the extent of money related explanations alone. Authoritative culture, service rationality and morals in business each affect how well a business performs in the long term. Regardless of the size, business or level of gainfulness of an association, business morals are a standout amongst the most critical parts of long term achievement.

Our moral/right actions are determined by looking at the consequences, the greatest happiness overall principle. Immanuel Kant set forth two versions of a Categorical Imperative. The first version goes as so, “act only according to the maxim where by you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law”. This is known as the supreme principle of morality, it is all about reasoning, and making someone wonder; can you make a promise and then break it? Because by making a universal law you are ruining trust, and therefore, logically, the act cannot be performed.

In his work, Kant introduces the concept of duties and specific applications of inherent good will. He identifies three logical statements, the first of which is that actions are truly good when they are undertaken for the sake of duty alone. This means that those who offer help or solution to an ethical dilemma do not do so out of empathy, but for the

This will be an over view of ethics as it relates to business in our society. Concepts from Philosophy will seek to describe the correlation between actions that are classified as morally right or ethical in our dealings with each other as human beings. Clear and concise examples will be given as well as ways in which to improve upon business ethics.

Furthermore, Kant claimed for an action to have moral worth, the action must be solely motivated by duty itself. Contrary to Aristotle, he argued when an individual acted from other motives, such as for pleasure or self-interest these motives had no moral worth and should not be praised. In Kant’s view, the sole feature that gave an action moral worth was not the outcome achieved by the action, but the motive behind the action, so long as it was carried out from duty. Therefore, Kant’s stated, “An action from duty has its moral worth, not in the purpose to be attained by it, but in the maxim, according to which the action is determined… moral worth depends on the principle of volition without regard to any objects of the faculty of desire”

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should “always act so that you can will that your maxim can become universal law.” This means that a person should strive to have what he or she believes to be right as what is to be considered right in the rest of the universe, following the idea that

Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant’s theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

in itself; and, considered by itself” (Kant, 7). The only thing that is good without qualification is the good will, Kant says. All other candidates for an intrinsic good have problems, Kant argues. Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for ill purposes, Kant argues, and since then, can not be intrinsically good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worthy of happiness, Kant suggests, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional good. Misfortune may leave someone incapable of achieving their goals, for instance, but the goodness of their will remains. According to Kant, doing something out of good will means doing it strictly for the sake of duty. You do the right thing because it is your job to do so. As soon as you are doing an act out of the fact that you are inclined to do so because of some reward, or pleasure that is involved then that act will not account for your good will. Kant is straight to the point duty

According to Kant, the act from duty is the only kind of motive for actions that has moral grounds. This shows someone determination towards act on any circumstances.

One of the central elements Immanuel Kant attempts to define is how obligation and duty relate to moral law and how these determine moral worth. In order to determine what drives an individual to be dutiful, Kant first attempts to define what qualities in an individual will lead to moral behavior. Kant argues,