Immanuel Kant's Deontology

Capital Punishment has been used in the United States justice system for many years now, yet one must question whether or not it should be used at all. This paper will look at the Deontological views of capital punishment through the works of Kant’s categorical imperative. Arguments such as the unethical misuse of medical practice by physicians, who swear an oath to do everything in their power to save the lives of the people they care for, while using their expertise on an individual for an execution. Another argument that can be made would be the understanding just what the role of both race and religion may play in making this particular moral issue and question if individuals have a “right to life” and its effect on future execution

Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Kant’s deontology emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, and respect for people in the way we live our lives. In his eyes absolute morals cannot be violated no matter the circumstance and all people could act the same way. This is a requirement of universalizablity which means that these morals that are created by everyone have to be able to be applied to everyone. For example, if someone were to put a gun to your head and say that if you didn’t give the name of a prisoner to shoot they will shoot ten more prisoners. Is this situation rational? Kant says no. By giving up the name of that prisoner you would essentially be killing them. In Kant’s view

Is doing what is right always the right thing to do? According to Kant, the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but simply the motive that is behind that action (McCormick, n.d.).Immanuel Kant was a western philosopher that is still considered to be the most proponent concerning deontological, or duty based ethics and is thus considered very influential in the development of western philosophy. In that regard, If the sole feature that gives an action moral worth is not on the outcome that is achieved by the action, but by the motive behind the action, then the action would be different (just or unjust), since the motive that can give an act moral value does not exist and cannot arise from Kant’s idea of universal principles of reason.

The displacement of Syrian’s as a result of war is an issue that is extremely prevalent in today’s society. It can be safely stated that the question of whether or not to allow refugees into our country is an ethical one. There are many that would say that these refugees are a great responsibility and bring with them, undeniable risks. To these people, I would say, that despite the possible dangers, we as humans are naturally altruistic and are presented with undeniable philosophical reasoning regarding the importance of caring for distant others.

From his deontological moral perspective, this is what Kant will have to say about this person that her activities are moral in view of the individual's will or expectation of acting. Kant's hypothesis can be ordered as a deontological because actions are not assessed to be ethically permissible on the establishment of results they yield, yet rather on the type of the specialist's will in acting, consequently his activities depend on obligation and not important. Kantianism is based on values of sayings, willing, and the unmitigated objective. An adage is a general run or principle elucidation what a man takes him to do and the conditions in which he takes himself to do it.

Kant was a deontologist. Kant’s categorical imperative conditions, “never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 1785/1993, p. 14). Each action taken by a human is based on a maxim or a rule of action. By the same token, he believed that humans should not act in a manner that cannot be universalized for everyone

Conceding that in most situations, a lethal autonomous system can make a more ethical judgment than a human soldier, it would be inevitable that even the most sophisticated technology can make mistakes. A mistake in this case would usually result in the death of a civilian. Such mistakes leads to a key objection that the lethal autonomous system would be unable to shoulder any responsibility from its mistakes. While the inevitable killings of non-combatants are common in the modern insurgency warfare due to their close proximity, the proportionality of collateral damage is often accounted for under the JWT. However, the ultimate responsibility of the mistake falls upon the human soldier who pulls the trigger. Despite the advancement of technology,

However, there seems to be a foundational flaw in Kant’s logic that he uses to justify synthetic a priori statements, like the ones from above, that defeat the argument. The issue sprouts from how to think about a term's definition. Being true by definition is a quality of a priori knowledge and also analytic statements, but Kant, in a sense, is attempting to argue that not all things true by definition are analytic knowledge. Consider what a definition really is, where it originated, and how it was derived. A definition of a word describes it in detail and was created, whether it was your own personal spin on a term’s definition a basic dictionary explanation that someone at some point crafted, definitions are all subjectively man-made. Looking

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

Kant states that, “In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience, and with experience all our knowledge begins, but although all of our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience,”(CPR,41). What he means is that we do not rely on experience inorder to have knowledge, but knowledge and experience are connected for to have knowledge we must begin with experience. There are four types of knowledge that Kant deduced. A priori, which is knowledge that is independent of experience, knowledge which is always true, does not rely on a person to experience it inorder for one to realize that it is true. A

During the 18th century, the world was just reeling from the philosophical teachings of David Hume, when Immanuel Kant—Father of Western philosophy—entered the picture. Kant’s “central question was whether metaphysics—as the science of being itself—objects as they exist fundamentally and independently of our perceptions and interpretations, is possible” (Richards 1). It is said that Kant was sent to rescue philosophy from the hands of Hume. After consulting Hume’s works, however, Kant came to the “conclusion that metaphysics was not possible, but that we humans do it anyways” (Richards 1) So if metaphysics doesn’t exist, how do we create it anyways? Did Kant save Metaphysics, or bring it to an end? For Kant, the crux of metaphysics comes down to the viability of two varying explanations of gaining knowledge—Rationalism v. Empiricism.

Many philosophers have represented their views on moral philosophy, with different approaches on how a human being should live his or her life, based on what is right and wrong. Would you perceive a specific action to be moral based on inclination or because it was just a means to an end or because it is what duty requires? Immanuel Kant believes the actions performed as duty requires are the only ones with moral worth. On the other hand, Hume considers morality to come from within, through motivation and actions rather than through reason. This paper aims to prove how Immanuel Kant’s deontology is the absolute ethical system of “moral law”. To demonstrate this, we will explore appropriate arguments given by Kant through his fundamental principles of the metaphysics and Hume’s