How Is Kantian Ethics Permissible

The issue of what makes an act moral is what makes an act moral. It states that not every universal maxim is a moral maxim. Researchers have countered this and claim that it could be trivial or moral. Kant fails to tell us how we can differentiate a moral duty from bad imperatives. It is, however, practicable to universalize the maxim. In Kant’s theory, it is clear on how to distinguish a moral obligation to what can be termed as social etiquette. Someone might be irritated by people who eat using forks and knives and yet the individual uses

Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is a theory that basically relays the same message that most mothers teach their kids, and that is to do the right thing. The categorical imperative could be easily explained by the Golden Rule about treating others as you would like to be treated. Kant dives a little deep with his theory, however, and breaks the categorical imperative into three formulations. The first formulation is about essentially removing yourself from a situation and doing what is best for everyone. Kant is basically saying that it is unethical to make decisions that affect everyone, but only benefits you. The second formulation is about making sure that

It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not

It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not

The first factor is that many of these disorders did not exist, a few decades ago. A lot of these disorders have become more common. The second factor is that these disorders are credited to a rise in profit for the pharmaceutical industry. The third factor is that many of these disorders are now believed to be explainable by nuerochemistry. The last factor is that these disorders are socially constructed. According to Kant's moral theory, the popping up of these disorders is morally impermissible, because their intent is not good. The creation of these disorders has only one purpose, which is to make money. Also, it is not morally permissible, because that action cannot be ruled as a maxim. It could, but it would not be morally correct to

Monique Sawyer Immanuel Kant formed an ethical based theory describing reason and logic principals according to the evaluation of humans. "Morality and Rationality", is a chapter that discuses Kant's thoughts and reasons as to why humans portray certain behaviors. For example, he speaks about the good will and the motives behind certain duties. At times individuals exercise good will because of the deed within itself. Kant explained that the only good is the "good will" within itself.

A Kantian view on ethics prescribes that a person should act in such a way that if all people acted that way it would be okay. For example if you gave your promise to do something, you would always keep it because if everyone broke his or her promises it would defeat the purpose of a promise. He also believed that reason alone should be able to reveal what the ethical decision should be. Another view of Kants’, states that you should never treat people as a means to an end, but rather, as an ends in themselves. This means that we cannot use people in a manner in which we would not wish to be used.

The central element of the Kantian Worldview on Ethics is that rational actions are moral actions and that it is one’s duty to make rational actions. In other words, “one is obligated to follow the moral law that practical reason prescribes” (Jankowiak, 5). This is where the Categorial Imperative comes from. Kant has a complex understanding of universality throughout his philosophy, but it particularly becomes important in his Ethics. Kant believes that Ethics are purely formal and that one must be able to remove any context within an action and still be able to make sense of it.

I understood Kant’s Categorical Imperative as a moral guide to how to interact with other people. He essentially is saying that we cannot simply parasite off of other people in order to push our personal agendas. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is based on the concept of reciprocal and mutual benefit in an action involving more than one person. Every action has a maxim or intention, and an action is morally justified only if the maxim or intention does not involve the use of a person as a mere means. More specifically, it is morally wrong to use someone as a prop or tool in a scheme of

This theory is one that focuses on self-interest. Holmes suggests that actions taken under this theory are usually defended by the need to operate in the best interest of the general public or the society at large. The basic understanding of this theory is that torture in order to garner necessary and pertinent information is acceptable as long as the end justifies the means (Holmes 2007)

1. Categorical Imperative are derived from a principle that every rational person must accept. As Kant stated, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”(p.128) Which means that you will only act in the way that you would want the rest of the world to act. For instance, we will take lying. According to Kant lying is immoral no matter what and in any situation. So if we wanted to consider lying to someone, under the Categorical Imperative, we would need to think of the lye and its consequences. After you think of the lye and its consequences, you then need to think about if you would want the rest of the universe to be able to do the same thing at any given time. In the case of lying, lying is always immoral according to Deontology because it is not something that we would want people doing all the time. If we allowed people to lye all the time, it would be self-defeating and people would stop believing one another. In order for something to be moral in Deontology you have to think about the actions and the consequences of the action, and if you would allow the whole universe to do the action at any given time.

Kant, the founder of Kantian ethics, believes that the moral rightness of an action is not dependent upon the consequences but rather the intentions of an action. Additionally, Kant believes in The Categorical Imperative which serves as a rubric for moral rightness. However, the implications of this principle apply to everyone and cannot be disputed1. One formulation of the principle is known as the universalization test where one must only act according to a maxim that can be willed as universal law. For example, Kant believes that under no circumstance shall someone lie. This statement can be applied to all persons and it can be rationally willed by all persons. Another formulation of The Categorical Imperative is the means-to-an-end test where humanity must always be treated as an end and never only as a means to an end2. An example of this would be a taxi driver whose occupation is the transportation of an individual from one place to another. The rider in the taxi must acknowledge the autonomy of the driver of the taxi instead of simply viewing the driver as a means of transportation. If The Categorical Imperative can be passed, then the action is viewed as morally right.

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

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality