Cost Benefit Analysis: Pinto Fires

Kant develops a principle that we must follow in order to act morally. He explains that we have a duty to act morally. Duties as described by Kant “are rules of some sort combined with some sort of felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our own powers of reason.” He calls this overall principle the categorical imperative and it is the fundamental principle of our moral duties. All of our moral actions should follow and should be justified by the categorical imperative, and this means that all

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

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

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 developed the categorical imperative which is based on his belief that morality is derived from rationality. Our book tells us that the categorical imperative is an absolute moral law to be upheld regardless of circumstances. He was a deontologist, meaning that he believed that moral judgement is contained in the action alone. His categorical imperative is broken down into three maxims. The first maxim is universality; which means that for an action to be moral in your circumstances, it must

Kant uses ‘the categorical imperative’ to decide what the moral duties of humans are. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is the formulation of humanity. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” -Immanuel Kant. The formulation of humanity argues that rational humans can never use someone as mere means, and rational beings must be treated as ends to themselves, using someone as a mere means is immoral because we aren’t following our duty. This idea of the formulation of humanity differs from the views of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism looks at the right and wrong of an action only through the outcome or consequence of that action. Utilitarianism rejects the moral codes and would use a person as mere means just to get the greatest amount of happiness, even if that means sacrificing a person just so the greater good is happy. A reply

Carl Zimmer, wrote an essay “whose life would you save?” that asks why humans make the decisions they make and the philosophy behind it. Zimmer explains that Kant believed that pure reason alone could lead us to moral truths. He declared that it was wrong to use someone for your own ends and that it was right to act only according to principles that everyone could follow. For the sake of understanding who Kant is and his views, the philosopher Kant was a German philosopher and a deontologist; he believed that consequences don’t matter because moral judgment is contained in the act alone. He suggest the Categorical Imperative which means that morality is derived from rationality and all moral judgments are rationally supported. So, just as rational thought leads us to an objective reality, so to as there is an objective morality we can locate through the same process. Kant believes that the Categorical Imperative is a universal moral law that holds up regardless of context and circumstance. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is divided into three maxims. The first is universality, which means that you should only do something if it would be okay if everybody did it all the time. You would know if what you were doing is correct if you would be okay with everyone else on the earth doing the exact same thing. The second maxim is that every human being must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end. You are never allowed to

Immanuel Kant argues in his Groundwork’s for Moral Philosophy, against the instrumentalists, who saw humans as a means to God and the world – instruments benefiting God. He innovates a new way of looking at action, the metaphysical question on how to see if an action is moral in a certain circumstance . He contends that the rules for morality must be derived from duty, the Categorical Imperative(CI ). Kant’s Catagorical Imperative can be explained by deconstructing the term: Imperative because it is a command that forces us to use our wills in moral ways, and categorical because it applies unconditionally to rational wills, the wills of humans. Kant reasons that one must act through his categorical imperative, which commands unconditional

According to the theory, how should the decision makers have resolved the ethical issues? Explain your answer. (2 marks)

Immanuel Kant is one of the most important and hardest philosophers in history. Kant’s thinking of philosophy is based on human autonomy, the understanding of human and their reasons. An action of moral worth is not the aftermath by the action, but the motive behind it. He argues that the only motives for these reasons are from universal principles, leading to his famous statement of categorical imperative: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” With this statement, we can understand Kant’s beliefs on the nature of synthetic a priori, the five formulae (formulations) he created, his argument on sexual harassment, and how rational moral laws on race and gender discrimination with real life issues in society today.

The moral value of the action resides in a maxim, which holds individuals responsible for their actions as a result of their duty. According to Kant, the ultimate indicator of morality must be a moral law leading to the right action when applied to every scenario. Therefore moral law must be general so as to be universal and able to be applied to every moral agent. Kant formulated that right actions are those that could be applied as moral law as part of his theory of moral obligation through the process of analyzing moral concepts. Although everything tends to act in accordance

Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that we should all act in accordance with the law, what every that law may be. Kant states in his first formulation, “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature” (Pojman, p. 307). Another way to think of it is that we should think about how our actions would look if it became law. For example, if I think it is ok to steal paper from my school printer, I would need to consider what would happen if it where universal law or everyone is told they should to take paper from the school printer. If that happened, there would never be paper in the printer when anyone needs to print and the school would have to purchase more paper to keep up with the demand of the pilfered

Kant thinks that the basic moral principles of our society come from people’s rationality, and people must follow these principles unconditionally. These moral principles are the Categorical Imperative. Meanwhile, its common rules have different directions in society. To conclude these directions, it can be reflected from three different formulations. Among the three formulations, the first formulation of universal law has standout features in the maxim and the constraints about people’s behaviors. With combined analysis of examples, the drawbacks of universal law also appear out.

Every time person chooses between alternatives based on assumptions of moral code which grounded in value that provide the framework for principle reasoning and ethical decision (Guy, 1990). Ethical standard in social interaction are intended to know how to treats others or individual whether no clear answer between right or wrong. By evaluating and analyzing how these value related to the decision the implication of ethical action become clearer.

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.