Immanuel Kant's Groundwork Of The Metaphysics Of Mo

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 chapter one, Kant discusses the good will, and he wants to show us the idea of a good will by going through the concept of duty. Kant gives many examples about duty to find out whether the action was done from the obligation or the self-interest.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In the Prolegomena, Kant states that reading David Hume, "awakened him from his dogmatic slumber." It was Hume's An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding that made Kant aware of issues and prejudices in his life that he had previously been unaware of. This further prompted Kant to respond to Hume with his own analysis on the theory of metaphysics. Kant did not feel that Hume dealt with these matters adequately and resolved to pick up where Hume had left off, specifically addressing the question of whether metaphysics as a science is possible.

Kant argues that humans are the only beings capable of being ends in themselves. He believes that since human were created that they are valuable. Human should not be use a mere end to gain something. Every human is valuable and should treat as such. Human are the only one who can decrease each other’s value. Human should respect the right of each other and avoid hurting each other. Human should help each other reach how valuable they are.

Formulations 1 and 2 from Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ refer to actions to need be universalised and treating people as ends, rather than means to ends. Formulation 3 states; everything you do or and every action you commit , you must picture yourself as a person writing the law for a new kingdom, in which everybody must treat everybody else as ends, rather than means.

"Few formulas in philosophy have been so widely accepted and variously interpreted as Kant's injunction to treat humanity as an end in itself"(Hill, 38). Immanuel Kant's views, as elucidated in his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, are based on the belief that "people count" by prohibiting actions which exploit other individuals in order for self-prosperity or altruistic ends. Ethics then, are confirmed by the dignity and worth of the rational agency of each person. Since human beings are the only rational beings capable of decision making and reasonable judgement, humanity must be valued. Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an

My last chapter will present a resolution of these problems by reconsidering them in a non-formal sense. I have two main concerns. First, I will show how a Kantian ethic obviates the need for Kant’s formalistic (and unconvincing) answer to the problem of universalization in the first two Critiques. Second, I would suggest a revised ethic based on the Kantian values of impartiality, freedom, and dignity.

Humans are differentiated from beasts due to their ability to rationalize, endure spirituality, and seek answers of the world. In thus, humans have an intrinsic value, or dignity because they are rational and moral agents. Due to this, humans freely decide what they do and what they judge is moral, in which humans demand respect. In following and understanding this, humans must treat others as an end in oneself, and not merely a means to an end. This statement is important for Kant because

The categorical imperative is a philosophical hypothesis delivered by Immanuel Kant. Constrained just by the rule of universalizability, the even minded reason of any rational being grasps the obvious fundamental to be: "Act only to that maxim whereby can at the same time will that it should become universal law." That is, each unique individual perspectives itself as choosing, by its decision to act positively, that everyone (including itself) will reliably go about according to the same general standard later on. This affirmation of the moral law, Kant kept up, gives a strong, helpful procedure for surveying particular human exercises of a couple of specific groupings.

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

He explains to the reader that an action is determined to be either morally correct or morally wrong based upon whether or not one’s will aligns with one’s duty. To further this notion, Kant believed every being had a ‘maxim’ that motivated one’s will to act on a certain principle. However, as much as these concepts are a part of Kant’s moral theory, the backbone of Kant’s theory is the Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative acts as a universal moral standard that transcends cultural trends. Kant described this notion through three separate formulas, the first formula being the law of universality that states one should always act within their maxim. The second formula is the formula of humanity, which tells the reader to treat others, as you would want to be treated. While, the third formula is the formula of autonomy, which dictates every being should have a sense of a law within both themselves and others. While Kant believes that all unlawful actions are morally wrong, Mill would disagree. Mill believes that an action is morally correct based off the consequences. Therefore, an action that provides more overall happiness, even if unlawful, is

After completing this section of Immanuel Kant’s work, I could not help but take issue with one of his main points. Kant states that all “rational beings” should view themselves and other rational beings as ends within themselves. Essentially, that other humans should all just have inherent value regardless of what purpose they serve in others’ lives. Consequently, Kant uses this idea as a means to set up a universal system of respect for all other human beings. He is underscoring the notion that in order to be a morally correct human being, it is necessary to treat those around you with respect, regardless of what you may or may not need, desire or want from them. However, Kant only extends this definitive “intrinsic value” to other humans,

In this paper, I will investigate the comparable and contrasting views of Soren Kierkegaard and Immanuel Kant. Their extraordinary journeys towards the meaning of morality and ethics is riveting, spiritual, universal, and in many ways, incredibly different. My conclusion is that though there are aspects which bind their theories together, ultimately both men possess different understandings of what morality is and how an individual ought to be moral. Kierkegaard, while exemplifying a less structured philosophical outline embeds his theory too heavily on Christian faith. This makes it unapproachable beyond a surface point with individuals of a different religious belief. On the other hand, Kant exemplifies an extremely strict structure, less associated with religion, and inclusive of universality, reason and equality. I will show how both Soren Kierkegaard and Immanuel Kant’s theories on morality contribute to the teaching of philosophy by comparing and contrasting their views. Ultimately, this paper is intended to illustrate the superiority in the writings of Immanuel Kant and his philosophical theory.

In the end, Kantian formalism, both the narrow and broad forms, are misleading views, which calls for some alternative way to explain Kant’s ethics. We find, then another interpretation of Kant that is persuasively valid and that recognizes both the weaknesses and strengths in his ethical theory. If we fail to embrace this challenge by considering Kant’s ethics as an insuperable obstacle, we will be halted in our desire to deepen and enrich philosophical