Immanuel Kant's View Of Nature

Anthropocentrism are people who have centered view of our relationship with the environment. People who follow this ethic are described as those who deny, or overlook and devalues the notion of nonhuman things. Biocentrism is defined as intrinsic value to certain living things or to biotic realm in general. In this life the human life and nonhuman life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems which consists of living and nonliving elements and their interrelationships (Wihgottt & Laposata, Environment, page

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

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.

In this paper I am going to attempt to answer a question utilizing a little help from one of two philosophers. First of all the question I will be answering is “Should the moral value of an action be determined by the intentions/character that inspire the action, or the consequences that result from the action?” Second, the philosophers I am going to discuss throughout this paper are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Now before I tell you my answer to this question I am going to explain these who these two philosophers are and what their viewpoints on ethics are.

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals presents an interesting moral duty: that all people be treated as ends in themselves. As a result to this duty, Kant outlines imperatives adressing how to—and not to—treat other people. Some people regard these imperatives as “strict” and “not applicable” to reality. They believe Kant’s moral imperatives have practical exceptions despite suggestions for strict adherence, and they feel that Kant’s imperatives fail to answer real-world dilemmas; however, such criticisms are misunderstood and narrow-minded. To address such criticisms, it is necessary to first understand Kant’s construction of this duty to others—the Formula of Humanity.

In his essay titled "The Land Ethic," Aldo Leopold argues that humans should extend ethical behaviors to the natural environment or in other words, ‘the land.' The author points out that, thus far, humans have only acted ethically towards one another. However, he believes that it is time for humans also to start to treat the environment with the same respect and dignity that we have for the members of our own species. The author states that he is aware that we cannot entirely prevent utilizing nature as a resource and a commodity. Nonetheless, he concludes that humans should have the responsibility to take care of the environment and to assure its continued existence.

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, explored in his “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785), suggests that if we (i.e., all human creatures) are considered as beings with the capacity to reason, by this standard we must also all share the capacity for moral autonomy and thus, in this sense, human rights should be considered as universal. His deontological position suggests that humans, as members of a shared global community, have a responsibility to behave according to certain standards. This idea of autonomy lies at the core of his argument because he suggests that an action done un-willingly is one which lacks any moral worth. Contradictory to any consequentialist position, an important stance in any human rights debate, Kant

Mary Midgley critically analyzes philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and David Hume, and argues that they have greatly influenced our way of thinking. She quotes G.R. Grice, in which he states that not all classes have natural rights, and questions just what rights and duties, by an extension, are. By delving into the thoughts of John Stuart Mill and Kant, she formulates her own arguments and contends that duties should be applied to everything and everyone around us. She stresses that that a person is responsible to everything, from another human being to an inanimate object. She then separates these duties into five different sectors: the human, animal, inanimate, comprehensive, and miscellaneous (such as oneself and God). Using this chart, she demonstrates that it is quite easy for one to exclude minorities when you only look at a portion of the scale and refuse to examine the entire image. Furthermore, she makes a very clear distinction that we should not have duties towards these inanimate sectors because we must personify them, but rather because these objects contain value to those who are animate. Therefore, she concludes that we all have to duties to these sectors, not just in concerns of them.

When it comes to guiding our moral actions, I believe that care ethics is the better moral philosophy to follow over Kantian deontology. While both moral philosophies strongly believe in defending the dignity of our fellow man, care ethics believes that nurturance and caring is the best way to defend a person’s dignity, as opposed to Kant who believe that our actions alone determine our dignity and worth. There are a number of reasons why one should choose care ethics over Kantian deontology. The first reason is that, in his moral philosophy, Kant chooses reason over feeling. The second reason is that Kant lacks compassion for the unique situations of others by suggesting that the principle of good is universifiable. The third reason is that Kant ignores how the consequences of our actions affect others. Finally, the fourth reason is that Kant implies that while we should all seek to perfect our moral selves, we are not responsible for the moral growth and perfection of others. Instead, we are merely obligated to help others and promote their happiness.

Immanuel Kant I can understand his saying do what you can the same time let it be a universal law. So therefore whatever you do let it make sense and be fair that everyone could do and most likely be legal. Like helping people homeless people for instance I think if everyone offers a homeless person a hand with clothes and food that would be fair. Like you wouldn’t have to go out your way to help them you could give them a shirt that you no longer want, or of food item anything inside your cabin, a roll of toilet paper and that wouldn’t be too much on your end unless its your last. However, if everyone would do that would could it would help a person in need many of us waste money on a daily basis on things we really don’t need. It would be

Immanuel Kant and many others stand by the idea that people are not to be treated like objects. Such a principle necessitates treating one’s moral counterparts as “ends” rather than mere tools to attain other things.This Kantian principle, commonly referred to as the Principle of Humanity, addresses many issues overlooked or poorly covered by other moral formulations. The greatest boon of the Principle of Humanity is the value placed on individual people. Following closely behind is a salient and decisive rationale for condemning murder and the sort. This principle, by acknowledging the “Human” nature of people, distinguishes itself among its competitors. A

Immanuel Kant is commonly considered a key figure in modern philosophy. He is most prominently known for considering that the rationality of the human mind is the main source and structure to everyday experiences. Kant believed that our mind and our various sensibilities allow us to be reasonable and make moral judgements. This particular concept Kant presupposed revealed that traditional sensibilities had it wrong thinking that our minds are mirroring the things around us, rather our reality must coincide to the minds active concepts in order for humans to experience anything at all. Thus making reason and the human mind the most important facet of any experience.

Animals get hurt by people since they too were hurt in the he past and they hurt animals to feel fair

He believed that sound ethical decisions would be made because of these individual character attributes, not necessarily due to any reasonable decision-making that aids one toward sound decisions.

Where do we come from? That is the one of the most controversial questions of our time. Through observation and examination, scientists have determined that humans and every other modern day animal came from a series of ancient predecessors. This process is called evolution. Even though there is more than enough evidence to support evolution, there are many people, in fact billions, that believe man came to be in a very different fashion. Their theory is based on a model presented in the bible. The bible is a book full of stories that describe the actions of a divine figure, God, and how he created the universe and the earth. The bible makes outrageous claims about where we came from and how the universe came to be. The creation model is evidently wrong for many reasons: there is no evidence to support it and it comes from