Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperatives

When Kant is speaking of moral law, he is talking about how our will to do something is caused by our sense of obligation, that is encouraged by our personal or

Kant believes that morality and duty go hand in hand. In a more logical way of explaining this, he believes that people should do good things for each other because they are acting with a good will. When people act according to principle, that is true morality, not thinking about the consequences of their actions whenever the consequences are good or bad. When people think about the action they are doing, then they fail to have a driving force of duty, in return, they fail to have a good sense of moral.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was arguably one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Kant thought that it was possible to develop a consistent moral system by using reason. Kant theories were focused on a person act and moral duties. Kant believed that he was putting forward something that would help people deal with the moral dilemmas of everyday life, and provide all of us with a useful guide to acting rightly. Kant indentifies a foundation to morally correct action in a form of psychological motivation. Different principles such as fidelity, justice and gratitude play major roles in this field (Close & Meier, 1995; Johnson, 2004; Jones & Carlson, 2001 Solomon, 1996). Kant wanted to base morality in reason. The result would be that two moral acts could never contradict each other.

In Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant discusses morality to revolve around imperatives that remain true and applicable to all situations. Categorical imperatives are rules that must be followed regardless of one’s personal desires which may exemplify greed, power, money. Kant recognizes that these “abilities and traits can become extremely evil and destructive if the will behind these gifts of nature and the character they produce is not good” (13). Kant’s moral principles are based on a priori concepts that are based on reasoning and investigations. A priori reasoning encourages people to act out of duty with the reasoning that people do actions that reflect those duties.

Carl Zimmer, wrote an essay “whose life would you save?” that asks why humans make the decisions they make and the philosophy behind it. Zimmer explains that Kant believed that pure reason alone could lead us to moral truths. He declared that it was wrong to use someone for your own ends and that it was right to act only according to principles that everyone could follow. For the sake of understanding who Kant is and his views, the philosopher Kant was a German philosopher and a deontologist; he believed that consequences don’t matter because moral judgment is contained in the act alone. He suggest the Categorical Imperative which means that morality is derived from rationality and all moral judgments are rationally supported. So, just as rational thought leads us to an objective reality, so to as there is an objective morality we can locate through the same process. Kant believes that the Categorical Imperative is a universal moral law that holds up regardless of context and circumstance. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is divided into three maxims. The first is universality, which means that you should only do something if it would be okay if everybody did it all the time. You would know if what you were doing is correct if you would be okay with everyone else on the earth doing the exact same thing. The second maxim is that every human being must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end. You are never allowed to

Kantianism is a moral theory that derives universal, absolute rules of morality by starting with the human qualities of autonomy and rationality. Immanuel Kant, the creator of the theory, believed that this combination of autonomy and rationality has infinite value. [1] As such, Kant argued that utilitarian viewpoints are irrational because they may ignore this infinite value by aiming to increase the happiness of many through the sacrificing of the happiness of a few, thus treating people merely as means to an ends. [1] Kant therefore argued that morality should not be about measuring outcomes by pleasure or pain, but by a good will. In fact, he believed that morality could not be achieved outside of the qualities

The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant regards moral actions 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 utilize our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous beings. These obligations manifest to Kant in two distinctive forms: those that are Hypothetical Imperatives and those that are Categorical Imperatives.

Kant’s theory of ethics, known as the categorical imperative, is an absolutist theory. This means that if something is wrong then it is always wrong. For example, if suicide is wrong then it is still wrong even if an elderly person at the end of their life is asking for assisted suicide. Kant’s theory is also deontological which means that it is linked to the morality of duty. We all have a duty and that is to obey the categorical imperative. An action can only be correct if we do it out of duty.

In Kant’s view, Duty Ethics are based on a set of moral rules that should be universal accepted by all people and be necessary at the same time. Ideal would be if the personal feelings and instincts that a rational human being has when he performs an act of duty were not placed before the moral law. Also, the intentions are more important than the consequences. If a person does an act of good will, which has hidden intentions or goals, then his good will act would not have any moral value. The intentions of any good will action must be focused on the beneficiary to be considered moral. In addition, a person is considered moral and his actions are moral when he does not receive any material or non-material advantages that could affect the others while he recognizes that all people are equal and have the same rights.

Immanuel Kant created a theory regarding human morality centered around the concepts of “good will” and “duty”. That is people should act morally just to be “good” and not really evaluate if the action directly benefits the individual or not. Secondarily, Kant’s theory is centered around the duty’s and obligations of the person deliberating a moral action. This is that when evaluating a decision, you should try to act in the best interest of who you are obligated to consider ex: family members, employer, community, etc. These two concepts are the foundation of his two moral principles the Hypothetical Imperative and the Categorical Imperative. Kant describes the categorical imperative as the supreme principle

Kant believes that a person who does something because it is the morally right thing to do is especially commendable, more than a person who does something for some sort of gain. Human beings usually act out of self-interest. Whether its good or bad, we are doing it for ourselves, for someone important or for our loved ones. Psychologically, we would think our actions are right during desperate times. However we must realize that, during times like these, we may not be making morally right decisions. Moral doings involves the willingness to

Kant Ethics were proposed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who was of the opinion that it ought to be possible at all times for an individual to do the right thing as long as it is within their power and control. Kant presupposes that, in his ethics, the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent on the intentions of their doer. This, Kant ethics believe, means that an individual's intentions play a crucial role in shaping the morality of their actions. Kant also suggested that is hard for an individual to do the right thing for the wrong reasons and vice versa. So, the ability to be good and be showered with praise or be bad and be condemned with endless blame lies squarely within our control

Immanuel Kant offers an alternative account of duties and rights that depends on the idea that we are rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect. According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists in the intention from which the act is done. What matters is doing the right thing for the right reason, not the consequences it produces. If we act out of self-interest, our action lacks moral worth. Only actions done out of the motive of duty have moral worth.

Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative contrasts greatly to the principle of utilitarianism. Kant’s categorical imperative states you are intended to act a certain way because it is your duty to do so. Kant principle also states, to correctly do ones duty, one must make decisions while excluding the influences of the actions’ effects, and our own inclinations, therefore, one must think in a deontological thinker, to a certain extent. Kant also states in order to make a moral decision, one must have a choice, and so, if one cannot make a choice, and then they do not need to make a morally correct decision. Kant’s theory is fair and treats all individuals equally, promoting an equal society, as no one person can be valued above the rest.

A potential problem in Kant’s position is that he views humans objectively. Kant argues that emotions as moral motives are unsuccessful and without a good will, even good qualities and emotions such as intelligence or perseverance may well become harmful and contemptible. He claims that acts are only done from duty that have moral worth and asserts that motivation by emotion cannot be morally good. The only emotion excluded from this claim is respect for the moral law, as it is the only emotion involving recognition of the determination of the will by the moral law. His ideology of morals presents several issues: if all duties are absolute then it cannot aid in resolving conflict of duty. It also disregards moral emotions such as empathy and remorse as relevant and ethical reasons for action. However, Kant admits subjectively, there can be conflict between moral and politics in the sense of people’s self-interested inclinations but insists that they are