Immanuel Kant's Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of

When observing the different ethical theories one may believe that although their differences are unique there are similarities in them. One may state that a similarity between utilitarian and deontology is that they both require one to consider their duty something that should be done and considering the character of an individual is if it will be done. If an individual has morals and character he or she may consider it their duty to do what is morally correct.

Overall, deontology is based upon not just by following universal rules or performing what is ought to do, but by respecting human beings as rational beings as well. Deontology judges the ethical motive of an action not by its consequences, merely by the reasoning behind it.

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

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

In “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Immanuel Kant states that one test for whether an action is morally permissible is that it can be universalized. This means that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not allow others to do as well; you should not be allowed to make exceptions to yourself. Actions that you perform should be actions that you would allow everyone to perform, making this action universalized. If everyone is allowed to do it, than it should be considered a morally permissible action.

pay back money in order to meet a need of his own. He must consider

There is two views of the form of ethics concerning towards the law. [1] Abel states teleological view is when someone is viewing the existence of the action and deems it as a form of excuse. The second view, a deontological view is the normative ethical position that judges on the morality of an action and based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules. For example, Immanuel Kant follows a form of deontological because he introduced the form of categorical imperative which states that if any actions are not universal then they are considered immoral.

Immanuel Kant was one of the most important European philosophers and lived from 1724 to 1804. In his time he created Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Metaphysic of Morals. Kant starts by stating that “By identifying a good will as the only unconditional good, he denies that the principles of good willing can be fixed by reference to an objective good or telos at which they aim.” This ties into Kants next part of his work because it describes two shopkeepers that decided to act in the same way towards their customers, but are motivated differently. The shops are relatively located near each other. Both shops want the most business to gain the most profit. One shopkeeper decides to give back correct change only because he wants a good business reputation. This shopkeeper does not want his customers to go elsewhere if they think he is cheating them out of money. The customers could easily walk to another store to avoid being scammed. The other shopkeeper decides to give back the correct change to his customers because he thinks it is morally right to do so. He does this because he thinks it’s right to do this even if his shop business wasn’t affected. Kant states that “Action that would have been done by anyone who had a morally worthy maxim as action in accordance with duty.” This states that the shopkeeper has a duty to do the morally right thing when it comes to his customers. It all leads back to the fundamentals you learned

P2P file-sharing: downloading illegal content such as movie, music, and etc. No matter how one rationalize their own actions, anyone could agree that stealing is consider wrong. Furthermore, our society have become habituated to P2P file sharing and the idea of distributing and downloading free content for themselves. What would Kant think about P2P file-sharers? In Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, I believe that Kant would disapprove of P2P file sharing. If P2P file-sharing became or was a Universalized Maxim, no rational being would not want to live in such a world. Persons, such as those who work in the movie and music industry, would be simply used as a Mean for one's own End, which then be at variance with Kant's fundamental

In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Emmanuel Kant's central purpose is to answer: What is the “supreme principle of morality”? He says, "The present groundwork, however, is nothing more than the identification and corroboration of the supreme principle of morality, which by itself constitutes a business that is complete in its purpose and to be separated from every other moral investigation" (Groundwork 4:392). In fielding this question, Kant also presents his theory of freedom. In its purest essence, for Kant, freedom is a property of the will.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

Immanuel Kant was interested in the meaning of a good life, mostly doing the right thing. He was a deontologist rather than a consequentialist, meaning that he emphasised intent rather than outcome. He claimed that the materially best life is not the morally best life and that a morally best life is favoured to a materially best life. Kant started his own philosophy known as Kantianism.