Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

Many of the ethical theorists who preceded Kant attempt to ground moral judgment in the law of God or of a sovereign monarch. Kant recognizes that grounding morality in an externally imposed law compromises the autonomy of the will: in such a case, we act under a feeling of compulsion to a will that is not our own, and so we are not entirely accountable for our actions. We act autonomously only if we act in accordance with a law dictated by our own reason. While earlier philosophers recognize that rationality is the source of morality, Kant is the first to argue that reason also provides the standard by which we make moral evaluations.

In his publication, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant supplies his readers with a thesis that claims morality can be derived from the principle of the categorical imperative. The strongest argument to support his thesis is the difference between actions in accordance with duty and actions in accordance from duty. To setup his thesis, Kant first draws a distinction between empirical and “a priori” concepts. Empirical concepts are ideas we reach from our experiences in the world. On the other hand and in contrast, “a priori” concepts are ideas we reach as an end point of reasoning prior to or apart from any experience of how things occur in the world. Kant

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

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.

As a result of continued human suffering and questions of morality, many ethical theories have been developed over time to guide humans on how to coexist, differentiate between right and wrong, and live a “good” life. Many times, these different ethical theories seem to contradict one another, but all are conceived with the intention to guide morally just lives. Deontology is the most applicable theory of ethics because Deontology possesses a universal categorical imperative encompassing the ideas of having a “good will” and making decisions based on duty. The idea of having a universal categorical imperative prompts decision making that is increasingly based on duty, impartiality, justice, and considering how a particular decision will

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant, he talks a lot about the different types of imperatives, and different formulas and the principles of morality. Before talking about anything else, it is important to understand the definition of imperative. An imperative is “expressed by an ought” also known as a command and they tell what the relation is in the objective laws. The different types of imperatives that Kant discuses in this book are hypothetical, categorical, technical, and pragmatic imperatives. He first starts talking about hypothetical imperative which he says “represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means for attaining something else that one wants (or may possibly want).” In other words, this

In Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes happiness as a feeling of contentment with one’s conditions. He portrays it as the complete satisfaction of all ones needs and inclinations. Inclinations, being the things that we naturally desire. Kant explains that as natural human beings, we have a strong desire to make ourself happy. But, happiness in itself does not justify moral value. Therefore, happiness is not the purpose of life.

A very influential philosopher Immanuel Kant says, “To be kind where one can is duty” (Pure Practical Reason in the Moral Law, 127). Kant makes the argument that without good intentions, even if the action itself is morally good, the action has no intrinsic worth. Although he makes a very strong argument, this isn’t accepted by everyone.

If a man becomes so weakened by life and wants to commit suicide, is it possible to justify suicide as a morally correct action? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant tries to answer in his work, The Foundations of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785)”. Immanuel Kant is regarded as one of the most influential modern philosophers of Western philosophy. In his work, he talks to his readers about his thesis in which he claims that morality can come from the the principle of universal law, which is called categorical imperative. In support of his thesis, he argued the difference between actions with duty and actions from duty. In the beginning of his work, he first differentiates between empirical and “a priori”. His concern in his work is moral philosophy. In his writing, he exercises the need for “pure moral philosophy” relieved of empirical data. Circumstances cannot be factor when it comes to approaching “pure moral philosophy”. Kant divides “empirical” and “a priori”. Empirical refers to our experience in the world. On the contrary, “a priori” refers to ideas aside from experiences of what happens in the world. He wants to offer a “pure moral philosophy” due to the fact that morality should be enforced to all rational beings and, so, it must come from initial

In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.