Immanuel Kant On Morality

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Human Failings in The Crucible Read this, if you have ever felt jealous, selfish, or are gaining the feeling of superiority, before you can cause a corruption of yourself. The quote from the prompt, written by Victor Hugo, is explaining how people in society are acting arrogant because they think they are better than everyone else are always put in their place for acting like that. In the book, The crucible by Arthur Miller, shows these negative feelings performed in different characters of the story. All these feelings are caused by different things, it almost makes us feel sympathy for the person who has them. I get these feelings once in awhile, but I have learned to push them back and just be happy with myself.

“April 26th, 1992, there was a riot on the streets, tell me where were you!? You were sittin' home watchin' your TV, while I was paticipatin' in some anarchy,” these are the lyrics Sublime uses in their song ‘April 26, 1992’ to describe what happened during the Los Angeles Riots of 1992. “First spot we hit it was my liquor store. I finally got all that alcohol I can't afford. With red lights flashin' time to retire, And then we turned that liquor store into a structure fire,” people ,running through the streets, had no pity when demolishing small businesses and taking what ever they may want from them. The streets, neighborhoods, businesses were destroyed by angry protesters. Their reasons were clear, all they wanted was some

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.

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

Aristotle, one of the Kant’s predecessors in the field of philosophy, outlined that a virtuous person cannot do good unless it is in their will to do so meaning they are inclined to do the right thing. Aristotle explains that that person is morally superior that another who does something good out of some self-drive. That is in contrary to Kant, who outline that doing good is not morally worth unless an analysis of the intention of the action is determined (Stratton-Lake 332). Further, Kant insists that any action that is done from inclination lacks moral worth. In the case of the second merchant and the naïve customer, the fact that they have some feelings for the customer might not necessarily mean that their actions are inclined to that. It would be argued that the merchant acts from duty, but their personality of being empathetic give them an advantage over the third merchant. Further, Fossee (23) notes that Kant's moral theory may be seen to lack practicality as no measurement can determine the motivation behind somebody's actions. That means it is only an individual that can determine the moral worthiness of their

Even though Kant does acknowledge that behaviour and actions that produce a good outcome or consequence is in fact aligned with morality, he believes if you do anything that benefits you is wrong. As a personal example, I volunteer and produce ‘good’ actions because not only do I know it is right, or the good thing to do, but it gives me a sense of purpose. I feel good putting people before myself. Some people will do nice things for others because it makes them feel good as well. In my opinion, if people love to help others and act in ethically sound ways because it gives them a feeling of approval, and the action is causing a positive consequence, that should be moral. It should be a wonderful thing that mankind can actually have feel good chemicals run through there body when assisting humanity. Kant should take this into consideration that if we feel good acting in good ways, it is more likely to be sustainable.

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.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

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 would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

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?

First, all individuals do have a duty to what is right, whether they act accordingly or not. All citizens are held to a duty to uphold the laws, if there was no duty then laws would not exist. Morality coincides with being loyal to the laws, being a disciplined person, and living an orderly life. These essentials are all present in Kant’s perception of duty.

Kantianism is a moral philosophy that is based on Immanuel Kant’s supreme principle of morality. Kant called his supreme principle the “Categorical Imperative” (O’neill, 1986). 2017 Berggruen Prize winning philosopher Onora O'neill defines the categorical imperative and more specifically, the version known as the “Formula of the End in Itself” in her writing as she explains “Kant states the Formula of the End in Itself as follows: Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” (O’neill, 1986, pg 411) Kant’s supreme moral principle demands that individuals act only when they intend to respect the humanity of others. Another way of interpreting Kant’s categorical imperative is that in order for an action to be morally just, all participants should have acted in a way that did not undermined someone’s ability to consent to said action (O’neill, 1986). For example, making a false promise is wrong according to Kant’s categorical imperative because the person being lied to would have not consented to said promise had they known of the true intentions behind the arrangement (O’neill, 1986). Applying Kant’s supreme principle of morality to the situation of the homeless man asking for money does not give us a clear right or wrong choice. Giving the man money

Injustice, a sin that has plagued humans since the beginning of time, has ruined many lives. Throughout history there are many occasions that injustice has led to a person losing all possessions and even death. One example of injustice that was faced was the relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans because of their heritage. The bombing of Pearl Harbor led to Japanese-Americans unjustly interned and relocated, in the end teaching us to educate others so this never happens again.