Comparing Kant's Third Ethical And Moral Theory

Kant believed that the one unconditional good thing is good will (Fincke, 2009). In other words, any other candidate for 'good ' – such as courage or happiness – can be turned evil through immoral intentions. For example, it takes courage to stand up for someone getting bullied in the park, however, it also takes courage to bully someone in the park. As you can see, courage without good will, or good intentions, can be the downfall of another person. An argument that is well known to be made by Kant goes as follows; a shoe keeper might do what is

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.

The phenomenon of morality has fascinated people for centuries. Since the development of this phenomenon, humans have longed to discover the good and bad in both their actions and themselves. Naturally, countless philosophers have struggled to answer this question of morality. Although none have successfully found a definite answer, they have exhausted an abundance of ways to attack the question. One philosopher, in particular, by the name of Immanuel Kant, attempted to determine the morality of actions by focusing on their nature. As Kant developed his theory, his approach toward proving moral knowledge soon became widely known as Kantian deontology.

Good Will is the only thing that can be good without limitations, the only thing that is entirely good in itself and under all circumstances. Unlike some characteristics such as Moderation, Good Will is vulnerable of being put to an evil use and is thus always good. It is not good because of its accomplishments, rather through the act of willing in itself that it comes to originate from. Furthermore, Kant explores the concept of duty in order to reveal the commonsense of Good Will. When discussing duty, Kant makes three arguments.

In Kant’s Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals, his first proposition states that an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty. The second proposition is that an action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based. Therefore, it wouldn’t matter if the intent failed or backfired, as the principle was good. Will is between principle a priori and incentive a posteriori, and since Kant has stripped the will of its incentives, the goodness of an act must necessarily be in the principle. The third proposition, is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law. Since an action in accordance from duty must be stripped of all desires, then what is left is the purely objective,

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.

For Kant, he starts out by saying, “Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL” (Kant, 2008). Kant further explains this statement through the first and second chapter. He initially says that many things can be considered good such as; judgments, resoluteness, and perseverance can be undoubtedly good but can become bad if the person’s character isn’t good or if their will in using them isn’t good. He further says that a will is not good because of what it leads to but because it’s good in itself.

In this text Kant argue that the one thing in the world, or even out of it, truly good is the "good will". As well he points out that the qualities of temperament (Intelligence, judgment, wit), other talents of the mind, and gifts of fortune (honour, power and wealth) are without doubt good, but they can also be extremely bad and harmful. Contrary to a "good will" which is naturally good in spite of not having positive effects. Additionally, in this text Kant mentions some general principles concerning moral duties. First, actions are genuinely moral good only when they started without any inclination and for the sake of duty alone. Then, an action done from duty has its moral worth not because the results expected from it, but rather by the

The thinking of Immanuel Kant greatly influenced moral philosophy. He thought of moral value as a unique and universally identifiable property, as an absolute value rather than a relative value. He showed that many practical goods are good only in states-of-affairs described by a sentence containing an "if" clause, e.g., in the sentence, "Sunshine is only good if you do not live in the desert." Further, the "if" clause often described the category in which the judgment was made (art, science, etc.). Kant described these as "hypothetical goods", and tried to find a "categorical" good that would operate across all categories of judgment without depending on an "if-then" clause.

For this reading, I understood it to be that Kant believes that our goals or actions are guided by these two kinds of ethics: the first one being that those who judges the rightness or wrongness of an action are based on the consequences of that action. This to me is the belief that people do certain actions or deeds only if it benefits the general population or the group. Subsequently, this kind of ethic is also considered as utilitarianism, which is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or done for the benefit of the majority. Furthermore, I might add an excellent quote by another Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, wherein he states that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” By contrast, the second kind of ethic according to Kant is the type of normative ethical theory that holds that actions are intrinsically good or bad and that their rightness or wrongness depend on their consequences. Subsequently, this type of ethic and/or belief, also known as non-consequentialist, is done in the notion that regardless of the consequence, that it is for the good of the situation or the person; and that it is one’s duty to act in accordance to the greater good.

Section One starts off with a question – is anything good in itself, and if so, what is it? Kant offers to the reader several valued attributes: wit, intelligence, loyalty, and judgment (393). One might think that these attributes are what make an action morally venerated and positive. However, Kant says that if the will behind these attributes isn’t good, then they cannot be morally correct, and should not be cherished. Thus, everything comes down to the good will behind an action. The idea of something good in and of itself seems outrageously fictitious, or at least fanciful. It is difficult to paint a picture of what the good will really is and how it is achieved, which is why Kant offers small scenarios of people committing morally good actions out of duty for the good will, and contrasting these actions to the will behind it, driving it.

The philosophy of Kant has become a turning point in the development of the Western thinking and worldview. His innovative and progressive ideas have strongly contributed to the formation of a new paradigm of the universe and role of humans in it. A great role in Kant’s studies belongs to the analysis of ethics, morality and law as the main regulators of the human behavior in the society Kant is known as the founder of the deontological ethics (Kantianism), which presents a rational alternative to the utilitarian ethics and ideas. Particularly, the deontological findings and categorical imperative of Kant prove that it is virtually impossible to act immorally. The aim of this paper is to analyze the ethical concepts of Kantian ethics and prove the fact that acting immorally is irrational and unacceptable.

Modern philosophy simply would not be the same if it wasn’t for the ideas that Kant contributed. Kant’s ideologies revolved around the central idea of “Good Will.” He argued that, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good, without qualification, except a good will.” Good Will is a certain type of goodness that is only and fully, completely good. Good

According to MacKinnon & Fiala (2015), Kant’s ethical theory is a deontological theory. A deontology theory is based on “duties, obligations, and rights” (p. 111). The focus of this essay is how Kant uses the ‘Categorical Imperative’ to explain the nature of ethics.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?