In the film, the doctors of the hospital face the moral conflict of deciding whether or not to release Ken Harrison from the hospital, which would end his medical care and eventually end in his death. For Immanuel Kant, the resolution to this moral dilemma comes from the contrast between the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative, the idea of “pure will,” and his three formulations. The hypothetical imperative is a moral command based on the reasoning, “If I do A, then I get B,” and is not universal because it deals with feelings, desires, and wants. Because of the lack of the universality of the hypothetical imperative, the intention of the will is impure and heteronomous – relying on nature or instinct to make moral decisions. However, the categorial imperative is universal …show more content…
When a person possesses the pure will, they act solely based on moral law; the outcome of the action does not matter as long as the intention of the action was driven by the pure will or rule. In resolving the case study, one can consider the hypothetical imperative, categorical imperative, and pure will in addition to Kant’s three formulations which will be used to evaluate this case study. Essentially, the moral conflict of the movie can be categorized into the rule “One should not commit suicide,” or anything that destroys life, which directly falls into one of the examples Kant explains with all three formulations in his literature. This rule
From this view, Kant takes the perspective that ethical free-will is a danger to civil and social order. Absent the categorical imperative, man is left
In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.
According to Kant, imperatives are principles determining what individuals should do. These imperatives may be divided as those which are categorical, and those which are hypothetical; the former expresses imperatives that are those
Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.
When examining the morality of an action, one must consider several factors, including the consequences, intentions, intrinsic nature of the act, and the beneficial or harmful effects the action has on others. The classic film, To Kill A Mockingbird, depicts several instances where a character’s actions may be perceived as morally wrong, based on the fundamental principles of ethical theories. In the following, I will discuss the case where Atticus makes a choice to defend Tom Robinson, and I will apply two ethical theories to explain how his act could be considered morally wrong or morally right. Ultimately, I will illustrate that through a utilitarian perspective, Atticus’ action can be considered wrong, whereas a Kantian perspective
Philippa Foot finds trouble with the arguments of Kant, who said that it was necessary to distinguish moral judgments from hypothetical imperatives. Although this may have become an unquestionable truth, Foot says that this is a misunderstanding.
To base morality on a system of hypothetical imperatives, Foot begins by explaining Kant’s distinction between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. According to Kant, a hypothetical imperative can be contrasted with a categorical imperative in that it commands an “action that is good to some
In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives,” Philippa Foot argues that moral judgments are in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives are actions that are good in themselves and do not depend on desires, while, hypothetical imperatives are “actions that are good to some purpose” (306). According to Foot, hypothetical imperatives alone serve as the basis of moral judgments because categorical imperatives give us no reason to obey them. In this paper, I will explain foots argument that moral judgments are hypothetical imperatives. I will then argue that that Foot’s theory of moral judgments fails in two ways. First, placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives fails to designate moral from immoral contingent ends, and second, the hypothetical imperative weakens morality by making it too optional. To show this, I will first argue that placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives begs the question of what is the moral basis of its own contingent end. I will then propose a decision procedure for determining the moral value of the contingent ends of hypothetical imperatives. Then I will argue that the Leningrad does not solve and that basing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives still makes morality too optional.
Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as
Kant’s third and final formulation of categorical imperative “Formula of Autonomy” states that one must treat the idea of the will of every rational being, as a universal law. This means we should only act as maxims that are corresponding with a possible end. We should so act that we think of ourselves as a member in the universal realms of ends. We are required according to this formulation
I’m going to talk in this assignment about the movie: Gone Baby Gone; which is an incredible, fresh, and real film, and its relation with Kant theory. In this movie characters are rich and alive; the story is compelling, surprising, and not at all predictable. Kant said that one must have a respect for the moral law that is expressed in the intention, and I think that Patrick’s intentions were good because he did not want for the kidnapped girl (Amanda) to be involved in a world of lies, and neither to reproach himself for hiding the real truth. Also he wanted to do the correct thing or decision based on the moral law, and it was the reason why he informed
7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.
He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from
This analysis seeks to explicate the fundamental issues in Kant’s philosophy, which include duty and reason. The examination of the movie Gone Baby Gone is viewed in the context of morality, as it shows an escapade of child abduction. While doing so, one of the fundamental questions to address in this submission is the distinction between what is good, and that, which is morally right. In addressing this question, the maxims by Emmanuel Kant form the important part of this study.
Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.