Critique Of Practical Reason By Immanuel Kant

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.

happiness reside? Can this happiness be lost? Augustine answers these questions by the notion of one’s “chief good.” He explains that a man’s chief good is the reason behind all happiness. If one is not happy, it is because they have not found their chief good, and therefore cannot be happy until they find it (Augustine 264-267).

Aristotle argues that virtue, which is a trained faculty of habit, leads to happiness. This follows that the act of choosing a thing that makes a person good results in happiness. Equilibrium and moderation of virtues lead to happiness and contemplation, which involves discovering, and refining virtues assist individuals to be happy. In contrast, Mill provides that moral actions promote the achievement of happiness. Actions are right if they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they produce pain or suffering. Mill notes that the achievement of virtuous living can be considered happiness.

While the idea of ‘good’ is a subjective analysis that must be observed on a case by case basis, happiness is capable of being defined. Happiness is the ultimate ends to a mean. In performing the proper function of man (rationality) we are using means to achieve ends,

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

“… we always desire happiness for its own sake and never as a means to something else, whereas we desire honor, pleasure, intellect and every virtue, partly for their own sakes (for we should desire them independently of what might result from them)but

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

make people happy - are then moral. But this is not so Kant says if

In Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes happiness as a feeling of contentment with one’s conditions. He portrays it as the complete satisfaction of all ones needs and inclinations. Inclinations, being the things that we naturally desire. Kant explains that as natural human beings, we have a strong desire to make ourself happy. But, happiness in itself does not justify moral value. Therefore, happiness is not the purpose of life.

For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose of our lives here on Earth will tend to focus on the importance of achieving happiness, of sharing happiness and of bringing happiness to others. It is therefore reasonable to propose the knee-jerk response that happiness is the end in and of itself. However, as Kant asserts, this is an incomplete understanding of our supposed purpose here. As the 18th Century German philosopher asserts, happiness lived without the principle of good will, can have the capacity to be a rather unsavory force. According to Kant, in fact, this concept of good will is a core determinant as to whether the characteristics by which we can be defined may be considered virtues or vices. Kant argues that this truth "holds with gifts of fortune; power, riches, honor, even health, and that complete well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness make for pride and often hereby even arrogance, unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind and herewith also to rectify the whole principle of action and make it universally comfortable to its end." (Kant, p. 7) This principle underlies the initial rejection of the assumption that Happiness, however formulated, is the

Kant does not believe that happiness is important enough to base his ethics on. For him, happiness is not pleasure. It is not the virtuous or joyful feeling associated with living a moral life. It is simply the satisfaction with one 's condition. In this sense, happiness is put aside by Kant to focus on our duty as a human (Kant, ). He places emphasis on the respect we have for others in the way we live our lives. Everyone deserves this respect by virtue of being human. If everyone refused to use people as a means for their own personal gain and rather as ends out of

Therefore, happiness is the highest act of virtue because it is the only end in every action we preform. A person that preforms an action for the sake of being happy requires many steps to eventually reach the stage of happiness. When there are steps involved to reach happiness, then the action is preformed for the sake of something else and not in itself. Such as a person who wants to eat healthier because their end motive is to be happy. Therefore, the action is not preformed for the sake of just to eat healthy but to reach happiness. However, to become virtuous, a person will preform actions that make them virtuous with a firm and unchangeable character. It is a skill that is made through a habit, Aristotle states, “legislators make the citizens good by preforming habits in them”(NE, P.23), such as preforming acts of bravery. But, a brave person needs to find a balance because being too brave will lead to excess

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

All humans have some type of understanding of what good will is, as it is a reason or a determination of the proper thing to do at the right time or period. Rather than the human reaction to try and satisfy or make oneself happy, humans would be and should be more naturally inclined to make possible good will and being good which this will bring about unintentional happiness or satisfaction. Then Kant going on to explain that by using reason in a situation, humans would not be able to attain good will as reason cannot be used on a unconditional basis and that would cloud judgement.