Immanuel Kant Morality

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

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.

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

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Human sexuality is a common phrase for all, and anything, pertaining to the feelings and behaviors of sex for the human race. Sexuality has been a topic that has been discussed and studied for as far back as 1000 years B.C. and is still being studied today. As the discussion of sexuality has progressed through history, theories have been created based on research and experiments that scholars have implemented, based on their own perceptions of human behavior. Out of the many theories that pose to explain sexual behavior, Sexuality Now explained ten that are seemed to be the most overlapped, and built off of theories. Of these theories, two that were discussed in the text were the behavioral and sociological theory. These two theories cover some of the basic ideas of what could possibly influence a person’s sexuality.

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.

From a secular perspective and more specifically a Kantian perspective the ideas of ‘Having a relationship without sex’ and ‘contraception’ must pass the categorical imperative in order to be seen as moral. Kant saw a moral being as a person who acts out of a sense of good will, following reason which is a priori; doing duty for duties sake and so acting to according to the hypothetical and categorical imperative. In undertaking the categorical imperative we can input the maxim of ‘Not having a relationship’ as well as ‘not having sex’. The first test the maim will face is the principle of universalizability by which the maxim must be able to be carried out by everyone in order to be seen as practical and moral. The maxim of not having a sex will fall at this hurdle on the basis that, without sex there would be no reproduction and very quickly the human race would be wiped out. It is therefore immoral; hinting that it is our duty to reproduce so is not a matter of personal choice. Relationships on the other hand seem less crucial. It is perfectly possible to imagine a world with no relationships but where the human does reproduce as there seems to be no duty towards providing a stable environment for the upbringing of a child. The principle

Seiriol Morgan’s Dark Desires produces an excellent account for arguing consent as necessary, but not sufficient in validating sexual morality. Morgan draws on arguments previously presented by German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Morgan describes the concept self conceit as a self-deceptive attitude responsible for driving human competition and envy of others, often leading to the use of others as instruments to our ends, supporting notions of superiority over others. He concludes that self-conceit is an unsociable motive that can be used to empower and individual through the domination of another through consensual sex (Morgan, 2001). Consensual sex can often be just that, consensual in which both parties have agreed to participate for some kind of

Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, published in 1785, is Kant’s first major work in ethics. Like the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, the Groundwork is the short and easy-to-read version of what Kant deals with at greater length and complexity in his Critique. The Critique of Practical Reason, published three years later, contains greater detail than the Groundwork and differs from it on some points—in the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance, Kant places greater emphasis on ends and not just on motives—but this summary and analysis will cover only the general points of Kant’s ethics, which

German Philosopher Immanuel Kant claimed that it is morally wrong to use a person merely as a means to your end. This judgement helps us to understand and determined sexual morality. Thomas A. Mappes supports Kant’s claims and helps to further explain Kant’s statement by defining it and introducing the idea that one must give their voluntary informed consent in order for certain actions to be moral. Mappes also illustrates that voluntary informed consent can be undermined through both deception and coercion. This helps us in the understanding of sexual morality.

The uniform truth about sex is really a consistent and unique truth that is inscribed upon society as necessary to keep societies organized and controlled. These controlled systems acquire and control our sexual appetite too for effectiveness because our sexuality is the weakness point of our bodies through which multiple discourses or sources of knowledge can pervade our conduct and our existence (Foucault 69). The control of our sexual feelings is the best method to discipline our behaviors, and thru discourses of knowledge is how power is prompted. For instance, Foucault explains that through confessions power is applied. As humans, we tend to see such confessions as a way

Immanuel Kant argues that suicide is in principle ethically wrong and in order for Kant to demonstrate his position on the ethical implications of suicide, he presents his formula for humanity. Immanuel Kant presents a morality-based argument that denies any legitimacy to suicide. His understanding of the formula of humanity stipulates that the very nature of human free will, as well as free choice, is generated primarily from the fact that we own our bodies. Kant claims that since life, as we know it, is solely made possible by the possession of a working body, and in turn our body is not contingent within our life. Ultimately, freedom of choice is only possible because we have bodies, and therefore we have no right to abuse our body, the

Moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy which focuses and investigates the ideas of right and wrong and good and evil behavior. Moral philosophers have researched and justified the logical consequences of moral or ethical beliefs.When we think of morals, we think of rules that tell us which actions are right and which are wrong. But, do human beings have the ability to judge for themselves, based on the facts of a situation, what is right and wrong, what they should do and not do? Well, according to Immanuel Kant, who is one of the most influential philosophers of all times, believes that human beings should not be making decisions based on the facts of a situation, but should act according to universal moral codes that apply in all situations regardless of the outcome. Kant refers to these universal moral codes as categorical imperatives and must be fully followed at all times across all circumstances.

The author’s primary assertions revolve on the following aspects, what must be done to stop the war on sexuality on an individual

Throughout history it is evident that human sexuality changes do to religious, governmental and societal influences. The perception of human sexuality has gone through many changes such as being very open and unlabeled activity; to being very “conservative” and a topic that shouldn’t be talked about in public or at all. In any case, human sexuality has always been a topic of interest because humans are sexual beings who want to understand the consciousness of themselves as male or female and see their personal response when encountered in erotic experiences with other individuals. Unlike many other species whose sexual force is strictly for reproduction, human’s sexual drive seems to be driven by many factors that intertwine with each other which leads to very different outcomes. Do to these obscure human emotions and personal gratification, sex is always shown every culture’s art, literature, social norms, and laws.