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.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Immanuel Kant is a German deontologist philosopher who is considered to be the central figure of modern philosophy. His work, The Good Will and Categorical Imperative deals with the question of what is moral and ethical, especially in relation to rationality and the human will. Immanuel Kant believed in a Categorical Imperative, a standard against which all morality has to be based and all the duties and obligations derived from Kant. Kant placed a lot of emphasis on rationality and reason over passion as he believed them to be the foundation of morality. Thus, he argued that the people should decide on what to do in accordance with what they see as right and not what they believe to be good. The philosopher argued that the human will is a crucial part of the morality and is independent from other wills. According to Kant, all
Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different
In an effort to understand progress and its goal in humanity, philosophers Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx each present their theories with Kant believing progress is made through the reform brought on by antagonism and social instability in humanity which will ultimately lead to perpetual peace, while Marx argues progress comes in the form of a worker’s revolution and the adoption of true communism that will lead to utopia. These German thinkers seek to define the guiding the force beneath humanity’s constant state of evolution to understand where it is headed and advise towards a goal they find ideal for humanity.
What is really ethical? What is right? What is wrong? What are the factors involved in making the distinction between killing and letting die? What is the difference between killing one to save five and leaving one to die while rescuing five? Philippa Foot created a thought experiment that presents two cases known as Rescue I and Rescue II. In these cases, one must create a dissimilarity between doing and allowing. They must ask themselves what would be the moral thing to do. Philosophers have tried to explain the concept of morals and ethics and create systems to relate the two. John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are both two of these kind of philosophers. They express conditions on morality which are then applied to an ethical position. These conditions both explained what they believed is right and wrong and who benefits from what, but they are very different. Mill and Kant’s ethical positions foil one another and are very necessary when being applied to Foot’s thought experiment. This begs the question if you will do things to save the greatest number, or if you would do things strictly because it feels right. In Rescue I and Rescue II, Mill would provide happiness for the 5 individuals, while Kant would give life to whomever needed it simply because of his “good will.”
Since ancient times people have been questioning the morality of their decisions. Many turned to religion to guide their actions, while some fortunate few could spend the time to decide for themselves. Reality has a way of clouding judgment, but having a clear understanding of what is and isn't moral acts as a lodestone on the path to making moral decisions. The principals of morality have not changed much in the span of recorded history, so understanding the thoughts of those fortunate thinkers before us is an important catalyst to developing a strong moral code of our own. But, there have been thousands of such thinkers in the past, so it becomes prudent to limit the scope of our evaluation. Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two very important ethical philosophers in western thought who hold contrasting but similarly influential opinions on what constitutes a moral action. To summarize the question: Between Kant's Deontological ethics and Mill's Utilitarianism, which is the best approach to making moral decisions?
What it takes to be free does not necessarily mean escaping tangible shackles that binds around our wrists and ankles, but this could be removing the limitations that are put on specific people based on their status or gender. Immanuel Kant (1784) approaches the theme of ‘being free’ in ‘An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?’ that is about reaching a psychological state, which is to able express and act freely without being guided by the monarchy. However, Mary Wollstonecraft’s (1792) ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ conveys ‘being free’ as giving females identical opportunities and treatments that males receive. Although both these authors approach what it takes to be free in their respective texts, however, they discuss about separate matters regarding this topic.
Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming
The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.
John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant in my opinion was two great scholars with two great but very different views, on morality. John Stuart strong beliefs was named Utilitarianism. Simply stated Utilitarianism is the belief in doing what is good specifically for the greater good of the masses/everyone not just someone.
To claim an action moral, Mill says that the action must be measured by its impact on the overall happiness. This paper will show the comparison of the ethical theories of Kant and Mill by examination and everyday application. The movies, A Place Beyond the Pines and The Purge, have variously ethical quandaries throughout the movie. Examining both Kant’s and Mill’s take on the situations in the films, we arrive to the conclusion of what is the crossing line between a moral action and an immoral action.
The works of German philosopher’s Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx have played significant roles in the development of different sects of philosophy and religion. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, East Prussia, now presently Kaliningrad, to a devout, poverty-stricken family of eleven children. Through his works, it is evident that Kant was raised in the religious teachings and values of pietism as his theories show a heavy influence of his religious upbringing. Kant as a young boy was accustomed to a routine of working and studying, and despite never travelling far from his hometown, he grew to be sociable and witty. Karl Marx was born almost a century later in the town of Trier, present-day Germany, in the year 1818 into a middle-class family. Marx studied a variety of disciplines, including law, philosophy and history, and became a preeminent philosopher, a revolutionary economist and a great leader. The revolutions of his time and his profound disapproval of the capitalist economic state inspired his works, particularly his concepts on authority and exploitation and his theory of history.
Kant views a maxim as a rule of action that should be acted upon only if you have the will he defines. It is the maxim that defines our choices. The maxim connects with the categorical imperative, which Kant presses is our duty to do what is right no matter what we feel. Hence, the categorical imperative embodies what our will should be.
Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential personalities in the philosophical world. Kant was able to leave a landmark through his various philosophical works that have raised controversy primarily based on how they articulate social issues. Kant's social theories especially the ethical and moral theories have been major points of discussion amongst the scholars in the field of art (notably sociology and psychology). The scholars have been expressing divergent views and deduction on analysis of Kant's theories with some agreeing with the philosopher while others were expressing their contestation of the theories. However, it is inarguable that the Moral theory