As we discussed in class on Monday night, Kant’s main argument in the first section was dedicated to developing his belief that a rational beings have the capacity to reason and through this reason comes a beings ability to know what is right or wrong. Also, Kant revealed that a beings also have an inherent desire to keep themselves save physically and strive for happiness. Yet, these desires or needs can be fulfilled with pure instinct and that reason does not need to be used in order to reach those goals. More specifically Kant says, “The highest purposes of each individual are presumably self-preservation and the attainment of happiness.” “The fact that reason serves purposes that are higher than individual survival and private …show more content…
Then, the second part of the first section outlines Kant’s views on actions as it relates to his concept of Duty. Duty to Kant is the specific obligation of a good will. He argues that there are four actions. Starting with, acting contrary to duty which is seen as immoral. Second, acting according to duty with the purpose of fulfilling an immediate inclination and acting according to duty with the purposes of fulfilling a secondary inclination, which are both seen as not purely moral. Then there is acting according to duty contrary to all inclinations which is the only truly moral act. Kant’s moral law is based on this idea of non-contradiction, in order for an act to be good it must be good in itself.
“The one thing in the world that is unambiguously good is the good will.” The good will is intrinsically good to Kant whether the results of the actions bring a positive outcome. This means for example attempting to save someone’s life for the pure feeling of duty to this person with no intrinsic goal for you or to use that person as a means. Now even if the person should unfortunately die due to natures plan and you did all you could then the result is negative in the person is now dead but you still preformed a good will. The ultimate moral standard is good will. Another example would be one given by Kant, “A philanthropic act is done by a person who has no true
The strengths and contributions in Kant’s theory include: 1) he marks a distinction between duty and inclination to make clear that morality is more than personal preference, 2) counters the “utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit” (no discrimination), 3) gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. The distinction between moral and inclination is that moral actions have to be nether self contradictory and universal. An example of duty is the prima face duties, such as fidelity, gratitude, and justice, proposed by W.D. Ross. One noteworthy strength of Kant’s theory is that it is good for both believers and non-believers of God and it opposes human lives as a means to the end. A morally good man needs to have good will and fulfils his duty. Kant’s ethical theory is based on duty as we ought to act morally as to do our duty- to obey the moral law. There is simply no room for feelings, inclination, love or occasion when related to moral decisions. Kant’s emphasis on our duty is similar and can be treated as compatible with the Ten Commandments in Christianity as its believers’ moral duty is to obey the Ten Commandments. Kant’s theory of ethics rejects utilitarianism, the “doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority,” which grants more fairness towards the
Kant explains that a plausible motivation could be either desire or fear of consequences, and these would be hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are when rational beings use means in order to achieve an end. Categorical imperatives, however, are ends in of itself. He says that actions are only good if they are carried out "just because," which would be a categorical imperative. However, he argues that actions are usually not assumed for the sake of duty alone but because of some self-interest, which forces them to act out that action where they wouldn't have otherwise. This is evident when Kant states that "in fact,
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.
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
In Kant’s second proposition he states “an action that is done from duty doesn’t get its moral value form the purpose that’s to be achieved through it but from the maxim that is involves, giving the reason why the person acts thus.” Kant makes it clear that any action must be done for its own sake and not for the sake of any other end. The moral worth of some action is to be found in the maxim itself rather than the effects it produces. Kant says that the difference between acting from duty and acting according to duty would hold no weight. By looking only at the end of our actions we would not be able to distinguish between people who act because they reason it is their duty to do so and people who act because they desire some of the end. We could all act for self-interested reasons because we desire some outcome. Kant says that
Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.
First, I would like to address the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his studies of deontology, or duty ethics, which is “an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (virtue ethics).” (Mastin) Kant specializes in many ideas, but the ideas I will focus on are: the will, good will, the categorical imperative, and the principle of humanity.
A person wants to gain the most happiness in their actions because there is no stress that comes with being happy and that happiness builds their confidence. Personally, I can attest to acting in my own self interests in the past and even though in Kant’s eyes I am acting immorally, I feel that I gain more out of acting in my self interests than in acting for the good will. I would act this way because, in the moment, I wanted to do what was best for me. I never considered if I would act in this same way if there were negatives that came from the action because I never really thought of performing an action with Kant’s type of reasoning. Besides myself personally, there have been tremendous amounts of instances where the same actions were taken in order to improve one’s self being. One example being
In Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer argues for the utilitarian system of ethics. To thoroughly understand this system, one must first accept the notion that the individual has a moral obligation to prevent something bad from happening if it is in their power to do so. For Singer, there is no inherently good moral compass one must strictly abide by. Actions that are considered good or bad differ based on the situation in question. Contrarily, Immanuel Kant asserts that there is intrinsic good in the world in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant calls this phenomenon the “good will” (527) and claims that this will is always good, even if acting upon it does not result in any positive outcomes. The argument that he makes
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.
Kant: It’s not only what you do that matters, but your motivation behind it as well. / Duty to do something depends not on the other’s rights, but on the rational assessment of what is the right thing to do based on the various types of relationships that you have with that person. / The only thing that is intrinsically good is the good will, rationality to do what is right for the right reason. / Good will is the only thing fully under our control. / Good will is being motivated to do what is good for the right reasons. The right reasons are ones that are rational. / Motivation should come from moral law or duty.
Kant's concept of morality relies on good will, acting from duty, and categorical imperative. First, he asserts that the good will is always decent and its value will be remained even if it does not attain its moral motives. Second, he claims it is our moral duty that decides the rightness or wrongness of actions not the consequences. Third, Kant urges that categorical imperative is based on reason and it binds us despite of our desires; furthermore, he uses it a way of assessing intentions for a moral action.
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.
Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?
Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)