Christianity Vs Kant

We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are selfish, and for the wrong reasons as ‘motives of inclination.’ In the seatbelt example, we see a motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.

Kant's deontological moral theory also claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative, which provides a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the right and rational thing to do, which is our duty to do it. This imperative applies to all rational beings independent of their desires and that reason tells us to follow no matter what. By his categorical imperative we

Kant explains that a plausible motivation could be either desire or fear of consequences, and these would be hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are when rational beings use means in order to achieve an end. Categorical imperatives, however, are ends in of itself. He says that actions are only good if they are carried out "just because," which would be a categorical imperative. However, he argues that actions are usually not assumed for the sake of duty alone but because of some self-interest, which forces them to act out that action where they wouldn't have otherwise. This is evident when Kant states that "in fact,

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

“If the action would be good solely as a means to something else it is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical”. Kant

Kant defined a hypothetical imperative as an action that addresses what "should" or "ought" to be done. He believed that the necessity of performing a certain action was based on other desires. This particular action would only be important if it was beneficial for another reason. It is prudent that a man feel the responsibility to achieve his own wants. However, Kant speaks of a second group of imperatives known as "categorical imperatives."

On the other hand, there are few to none examples of a Categorical Imperative, because as Kant would believe, they have to be actions that are good in themselves completely. To arrive at the Categorical Imperative, Kant starts off by explaining that an action is good without qualification if done from duty and not primarily from inclination, or ulterior motives. This, in a more simplified manner, means an action is good if it was the right thing to do and a person did it for the sake of duty and not because of anything else, like instincts or feelings. Kant believes there are very few people in this world that can actually live up to the standard of duty. From this point, Kant states that moral worth is determined by the rule or principle by which an action has been decided, not in the purpose to be attained by it. This statement goes back to the difference of means versus ends; is a person’s action based on the mean or is it based on ends? After Kant arrives at this, he then affirms that duty is the reverence for the law. The difference between reason and will is established at this point. Reason, or thought, can be described as theoretical or pure reason, or it can be described as practical reason. Kant describes theoretical reason as determining a given concept, but practical reason is idea of making the concept actual. Will, on the other side, can be broken down to either the “holy will” or empirically mixed

Kant vs. Betham, principles of utility and philosophy the rational and irrational. The understanding of the fundamental of nature, knowledge with the existence of reality and predominant or dominate that deals with principles of utility. The criteria of rational knowledge of principles – is the way of clarifying and prioritizing what is explained and interpreted through our actions, motive and consequence. This is a mixture of both reason and unreason; in addition, too reason and passions. Compared to a non-rational or irrational aspect of the human approach or temperament. Thus, this is a way of thinking and rationalizing what we establish around us. Principles of utility is a way of thinking what we obtain around ourselves as human beings.

good to some purpose" and the purpose, he explains, may be possible or actual. Among imperatives related to actual purposes Kant mentions rules of prudence, since he believes that all men necessarily desire their own happiness. Without committing ourselves to this view it will be useful to follow Kant in classing together as "hypothetical imperatives" those telling a man what he ought to do because (or if) he wants something and those telling him what he ought to do on grounds of self-interest. Common opinion agrees with Kant in insisting that a moral man must accept a rule of duty whatever his interests or desires.4 Having given a rough description of the class of Kantian hypothetical imperatives it may be useful to point to the heterogeneity

The word “imperative” can be used in multiple contexts. In all contexts, it is defined as a command. Kant introduces two types of imperatives that can distinguish the level of significance each plays in determining if an action is morally right or wrong, good or bad. These commands are called categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives.

A simple way to define the difference is that hypothetical imperatives dictate if you want this, then you ought to do this. The goals are based on self-interest. On the other hand, categorical imperatives are unconditional and mandate that we recognize there is only one true imperative; always take the moral ground. According to Kant, moral truths are not received from on high through divine revelation or inspiration. Rather, they are based on reasons that make sense to all people who bother to think about

Kant claims that humans try to combine all their knowledge into a consistent and unified system for reasoning and understanding. Kant develops on the elements of reasoning and understanding by referring to hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are an individuals actions done through a certain sequence in order to achieve something. For example, if an individual wants to get their Associates degree before graduating from Bakersfield College, he or she must understand, it is mandatory to pass at least 60 units of classes to get a degree. Categorical imperatives are doing certain actions due to an individual's "pure" practical reasoning, even if the action does not satisfy his or her desires. For instance,

Kant believed that certain types of actions, including murder, theft, and lying, were absolutely prohibited. There are two questions that we must ask ourselves, “can I rationally will that everyone act as I proposed to act” and “does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposed?” Kant has created the categorical imperative in 1785, to determine what it means for one’s duty. An imperative is a command, there are two imperatives that Kant talks about the hypothetical and the categorical imperatives. Each imperative are different but it comes out to the same outcome. Hypothetical imperative is the imperative command conditionally on your having a relevant desire. Categorical imperative is the command

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

In Kant’s philosophy he discusses three imperatives which include: the categorical, hypothetical and practical imperatives. In Kant’s categorical