Comparing Kant's Conformity With A Moral Obligation

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

Media, defined as a mean of mass communication that reaches and influences the general audience. When the media is combined with moral theories, known as the guides for humans to figure out what actions are either right or wrong, it creates a balance in our entertainment about what is ethical or not to display on society. By having various Moral Theories and none of them being one 100 percent perfect, it causes humans to create their own satisfactory moral theory. My own satisfactory moral theory, in essence, is a combination of being able to take into consideration my personal relationships while still making an impact in my community, society and the world. Having morals in the media is what allows us to know when one may cross the line.

Again, the reading from Kant proves difficult to read. However, the part discussing examples of duties I found to be quite interesting. In relation to the last example when it mentions that all human beings should help others in need, I came to question if people actually carry out this duty throughout all aspects of their life? I also questioned when people do assist others in need, if they actively think and register their actions as a duty since as human beings we have a moral responsibility to help others.

Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics of morals offer a well thought out and complex set of formulations that give rational beings the opportunity to be autonomous from outside factors and make moral decisions. In theory, Kant’s metaphysics of morals and a careful use of the categorical imperative are needed to create what Kant describes as the “kingdom of ends”. Kant oversimplifies certain questions certain ideas, presuming the answers are “rational” when in reality the answers really depend on multiple assumptions that cannot be nullified in making moral judgments. After a carefully researched analysis of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, why the metaphysics of morals is necessary according to Kant, and critiques of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, my contention is that Kant’s metaphysics of morals is flawed, not wholly applicable to the real current world, and therefore not convincing.

Looking at this movie from Kant's viewpoint, We can say Campbell is morally wrong, by allowing himself to become a spy, he betray his duty for his country. Honesty if I remember is one of the categorical imperatives which needs to be followed, at situations. By being a spy, Campbell committed a dishonest act to his country to which he has a duty to protect. It must be noted that Campbell was indifferent to the views of the Nazis and the destruction and oppression of lives that was causing. Of course if we look at it in a different light he could have agreed to become a spy since he shared the plight of the subjugation of the Jews, I think Kant would have viewed his situation as to have no moral value. As Ackrill out it "His being a spy is also

With Kant’s ethical code, an individual is only responsible for their decision, but they need to make that decision based on the consideration that everyone else made the same decision they did. Kant was a stanch believer that no one should lie under any circumstance, because if someone did lie while following his code of ethics, that would mean that that person would be okay with a world where absolutely everyone lied at every moment of every day, and it should be obvious that a life like that would most likely not be desired by anyone. Individuals who disagree with Kant’s code point to the idea that there are some cases where it should be okay to lie even if the individual would not wan to live in a world where people lied all the time. Say

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who argued that reason is the source of morality. He had a few categorical imperatives which consisted of universalizability, using people as an end in itself rather than as a means, and formulation of autonomy. In his imperative of universalizability, he strongly believed that an act is only morally right if it can be universalized and applied to every situation. For example, if it was morally right for someone to lie, then it should be morally right for everyone to lie. However, this would mean no one would believe anyone and therefore this would not work so lying cannot be universalized. In the imperative of using humanity as an ends, he believed that one should never use someone merely as a means

Kant’s principle of autonomy is an important part of Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories. Though it may seem that such an important piece of Kant’s theory would be undeniable but there have been oppose its place in Kantian ethics. To provide evidence that Kant’s principle of humanity would stand up to arguments against autonomy. Initially, I will illustrate the purpose and reasoning of autonomy in the principle of humanity. I’ll then provide an argument attempting to disprove autonomy’s place in Kant’s theory including the concept of moral luck. Finally, I will address inconsistencies with this argument and how the principle of humanity is sustainable even with this opposition.

Kant tries to offer a deontological position that is public or available to all to explain morality. The thing he relied on was Reason. Kant used reason to generate his intrinsically right rule. He relied on two ways to explain his moral system. These are: relying on a rational test to construct moral rules and respecting the moral agent. Kant claims that reason is the universal foundation for all morality and argues that morality must be based on apriori truth (truth based on reason) and not on empirical or a posterior truth. This is because, if morality is not apriori, then it won’t be universal, therefore it would be subjected to change.

Now the question then becomes what determines if an action was done out of goodwill? For Kant the prime focus on what determines morality came from the concept of duty. An action done from duty contributes its moral worth, not from the end or result of such action, but out of the intent from which it came; “duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence, or respect from moral law” without any regard or consequences (Rahman, 1993, p. 86). The universal moral law dictates duty in that we all have a duty to follow moral law through one’s actions. The Formula of Universal Moral Law requires that having moral worth must meet the requirements of self-legislation in that rational human beings through reason produce a law unto itself

In my essay, I’m going to be arguing Immanuel Kant’s theory that “a will is good because it is good in itself” (383). This argument, presented in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, is one of the key ideas brought up to support his theory on morality. I believe that Kant’s argument is essentially correct – however, with every argument comes a set of flaws, and this one is no exception.

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” Kant’s ultimate goal was to show mortality and moral law.

Kant explains that a perfect duty “is one you MUST obey-usually these are defined in negative terms-you must not lie, you must not steal, you must not murder.” (Kant) On the other hand, Kant explains an imperfect duty as “one you should do if you can, but you may use your judgement.” (Kant) I personally believe that is undoubtably easier to fulfill a perfect duty rather than an imperfect duty. This is because with an imperfect duty, feelings are much more considered and taken into account. Although many individuals love helping others, their laziness can sometimes get in their way. It is much easier for a law abiding citizen that is morally aware to not steal or murder. However, Kant believes that a perfect duty also entails not lying. Lying