Immanuel Kant and Moral Law

In my last project I talked about the urgent issue of bringing in CBD only medical marijuana items across state lines into Georgia. The dilemma was that the families and patients who urgently needed these products were subject to arrest because the products they obtained were brought over Alabama and neighboring states who haven’t passed the laws yet. This ties in with morals because the illegality of bringing in a harmless product to Georgia to treat little kids with seizures and much more is absurd and subject to ethical debate in my opinion. My own view is that it should not be illegal to transport CBD products over state lines if it is for the benefit and well-being of people with severe illness. Immanuel Kant and James Mill’s theories of the categorical imperative and utilitarianism each can be applied to this ethical debate in varying ways.

In the reading, “Concerning a Pretended Right to Lie from Motives of Humanity”, by Immanuel Kant, he discusses a very controversial topic. Is it morally wrong to lie if someone’s life is at stake? Reading this passage, you can clearly tell Kant took this topic to heart since he explained it so thoroughly with passion and conviction.

Immanuel Kant I can understand his saying do what you can the same time let it be a universal law. So therefore whatever you do let it make sense and be fair that everyone could do and most likely be legal. Like helping people homeless people for instance I think if everyone offers a homeless person a hand with clothes and food that would be fair. Like you wouldn’t have to go out your way to help them you could give them a shirt that you no longer want, or of food item anything inside your cabin, a roll of toilet paper and that wouldn’t be too much on your end unless its your last. However, if everyone would do that would could it would help a person in need many of us waste money on a daily basis on things we really don’t need. It would be

Kant does not provide an answer for when our morals

Nor could they be identical with any other abstract relation; Immanuel Kant argues that in order to behalf ethically one must possess a good will. Qualities such as courage, honesty, and persistence, are viewed as good and are common traits wished upon by many. However, these attributes can become evil and harmful if the individuals will and character are corrupt. If one does not possess a good will or have a good intention they can become wicked. To a bystander, one may look, and act as if they possess attributes that are considered moral, however hide behind this and have a immoral intent. Kant argues that a good person is someone who has a good will, recognizes their moral duty and ultimately acts in accordance to their moral obligation.

The general definition of morality is the rules for right action and prohibitions against wrong acts. Sometimes morality is the single set of absolute rules and prohibitions that are valid for all men at all times and all societies. More loosely, a morality can be any set of ultimate principles, and there may be any number of moralities in different societies. Examples would be don’t cheat, don’t steal, and treat others as you would want to be treated. When dealing with the philosophers take on morality, there are two which are usually compared to one another, Immanuel Kant and David Hume. Immanuel Kant had many theories throughout his philosophical time. Here are some of his ethical works, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which contains both “the Doctrine of Right” and “the Doctrine of Virtue.” He also had some other works of importance to his moral philosophy including the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790), Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason (1793), and Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798). Here are some of Hume’s main ethical writings, A Treatise on Human Nature (1739–40), especially books two and three, and in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). Also relevant to Hume 's ethics are various essays, such as “Of Suicide” (1777), parts of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), and his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Kant’s Categorical Imperative outlines a significant section of his ethics, concerning the search for moral knowledge. This is a mechanism used in accordance with knowing how we ought to act, rather than how we act instinctively through desires and appetites. The identification of the Categorical Imperative is found through rationality and indeed must be equally applicable for all reasonable human beings. Within this essay, I will initially outline Kant’s first formulation of the Categorical Imperative then proceed to show that its credibility as an account of moral obligation is lacking.

The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than this law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant's moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave' to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds

Finally, the last field was logic which was the formal philosophy. Logic used material facts to define its mandate and argument. Some of the classifications in these fields include decision theory, probability theory and computability theory (Flew). Kant argues that if the philosophy comes from an experience it is considered as empirical. In this case, there is

This week’s reading was Immanuel Kant “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”. In this reading, he talks about the morality of people and the definition of a good being. There are multiple definitions ranges from the typical selfish acts compare to selfless ones ranging from the obvious ones of inequity to ethics responsibility. Hence, from this long complicated reading of morality, there were many questions that I had about this reading.

We will be concerned with Kant’s theory on morality and rather or not it is convincing. I will argue about on how the good will is “The only thing that is absolutely good, good in itself and without qualification, is the good will” (pg. 127). All natural virtue, both clever and moral can contribute to wicked acts. Sometimes we assume that if we are successful in life and happy then that’s all we need, but in order to be successful we need integrity and recognition that can steer us in the direction of satisfaction. I will argue that Kant’s theory on morality is rather very convincing in this paper, how hypothetical and categorical imperatives are different but a key factor. Likewise, that the principle law of nature is the core to the categorical

Kant approaches morality based on a standard of rationality. Because an action is moral on account of its being reasoned, the moral worth of an action is determined by its motive, or the reason for the action, not by its consequences. We determine the worth of the motive behind any given moral action by asking whether we could turn that motive

Properly named, duty ethics is concerned with a person’s actions lining up with their duty, or moral obligation. Therefore, an act is only considered to have moral value when one’s will is aligned with duty. Rationality is a key factor in Kant’s moral theory. Only rational beings have a moral obligation or duty that they feel inclined to follow in certain circumstances. When a rational being has taken everything into consideration when faced with a decision that has two choices, why would they ever choose the path that is the least rational? This ability to make a decision for the least rational option is proof to Kant of a person’s will. Since people have the freedom of their will, they won’t always make the decision that agrees with their

In this essay I shall be considering the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant with regards to what actions are as right or wrong, regardless of context or circumstance. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves as opposed to the consequences; what one should do in practice should be thought of as substantive concepts. Along with our fundamental ability to recognise this, Kant strongly believed that it is our duty as individuals to utilise our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous beings. These obligations manifest to Kant in the distinctive forms of the Categorical Imperative.

The question of how we determine what is right and what is wrong has been one that has plagued humankind for centuries. Although many have tried to answer this question we have yet to find a definite answer. Adam Smith is convinced that morals are grounded in sympathy and experience. Immanuel Kant, however, is certain that morals should not be derived from experience but from pure reason. I for one believe that neither of these men are entirely correct. Both of their theories on morality are flawed in that one does not account for the human experience and the other takes the human experience too much into account.