Introduction to Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Deontology

Regardless of what the final result might be, good will should always have the intention to do good without any external factors influencing the person to do a good deed. To a certain extent, this ties into the utilitarian philosophy because if good deeds cause pleasure, and pleasure leads to happiness, then that means that the society as a whole is happier and therefore they are more utile and more prosperous. When it comes to defining “good will”, Kant seems to be taking an approach very similar to the one found in the Bible, “so in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew, 7:12) At the end of the day, the intended purpose of these teachings, is to help us live a better and more fulfilling lifestyle by helping those in need and understand why we do these actions. What motivates us to do these actions? Why do we do them? These are all questions that not only Immanuel Kant intend to answer but the Bible as

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

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.

Kant would argue that you should never treat people merely as instruments; never just as means to your goals. As a deontological perspective, we recoil from torturing the child because it treats a person only as a means to an end. Kant’s deontological approach consists of two universal rules by which moral questions can be addressed. The first one states: ‘Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.’ His second rule states that: ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.’ The act of torture under the first rule cannot be justified as we would not accept it being universalised and can potentially be used against ourselves.

In this text Kant argue that the one thing in the world, or even out of it, truly good is the "good will". As well he points out that the qualities of temperament (Intelligence, judgment, wit), other talents of the mind, and gifts of fortune (honour, power and wealth) are without doubt good, but they can also be extremely bad and harmful. Contrary to a "good will" which is naturally good in spite of not having positive effects. Additionally, in this text Kant mentions some general principles concerning moral duties. First, actions are genuinely moral good only when they started without any inclination and for the sake of duty alone. Then, an action done from duty has its moral worth not because the results expected from it, but rather by the

In section I of Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, Kant argues that every human being alive is subject to the categorical imperative. Kant came to this conclusion by arguing that the only thing that is good without needing qualification is a good will. Throughout this paper I will discuss Kant’s good will and his three propositions. A good will is an act done from duty and motivated by respect. If a person manifests a good will in action, the respect for duty determines that I do the action, regardless of whether or not my desires incline me to do the act that satisfies the duty. In summary, Kant’s idea is that it is not under a human being’s control what kind of desires a person holds, but it is a person’s responsibility for what lies within his or her control. This means that a person cannot take credit or responsibility if the person’s desires are good or negative. Kant eventually comes to the conclusion that the categorical imperative is any act is done from duty is an act that is done for the sake of the law and aims at conformity. Throughout Groundwork, Kant is trying to show that the categorical imperative is embedded in our ordinary moral thoughts.

In order to discuss terrorism with Kantian ethics, one must first define what terrorism is, or at least a working definition. According to the book, it is loosely defined as the killing of innocent, noncombatant civilians in order to achieve a political means. With that stated, the specifically avoids dealing with combatants, as that then, can cross the boundary between terrorism and war. However, that does raise the question of what lines there are between war and terrorism, if they are both attempting to alter the same thing, political structure. Although the distinction between the prior two can become blurry at times, Kantian Deontology is very black and white in its dealing with issues.

Looking at case study 1 considering the theories we have discussed during this THL 270 course, I have decided to advise Sarah to lie on her resume. When I first examined this case study at the beginning of this course, I advised Sarah of the same thing as I do now, but my ethical reasoning was different. I originally took the standpoint of John Stuart Mill and his theory of Utilitarianism. I said my reasoning was this because she would be doing a greater good for a greater number of people by lying. I do not discredit this theory now, but I feel my ethical reasoning’s align more with another theory. I also have formed greater understandings of theories presented in this course to better advise Sarah.

Kant’s deontology gives us questions that can be ask to determined how ethical the using of the information would be. These questions are called Kant’s categorical imperative. The fist categorical is, “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law?” This means that you should only act in a way that you would allow others to act in the same way. In this case, you would have to be okay with being treated the same way that the Jewish prisoners were treated. It would be most likely that you would not want to be treated in the way. If for any reason the answer to this question is yes, then you would need to ask the second categorical imperative. The second categorical imperative is “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person

He likewise trusted that the particular sorts of practices are found out and created after some time through practice too until the ethicalness turns into a characteristic and typical part of an individual's intellectual procedure and usage (THEORIES OF ETHICS - School of Education - Syracuse University., n.d.).. It was Aristotle’s belief that in order to resolve ethical issues in a morally, justified way, a person must abide by virtues that are decent (Rachels & Rachels,

We will be concerned with Kant’s theory on morality and rather or not it is convincing. I will argue about on how the good will is “The only thing that is absolutely good, good in itself and without qualification, is the good will” (pg. 127). All natural virtue, both clever and moral can contribute to wicked acts. Sometimes we assume that if we are successful in life and happy then that’s all we need, but in order to be successful we need integrity and recognition that can steer us in the direction of satisfaction. I will argue that Kant’s theory on morality is rather very convincing in this paper, how hypothetical and categorical imperatives are different but a key factor. Likewise, that the principle law of nature is the core to the categorical

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

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

All humans have some type of understanding of what good will is, as it is a reason or a determination of the proper thing to do at the right time or period. Rather than the human reaction to try and satisfy or make oneself happy, humans would be and should be more naturally inclined to make possible good will and being good which this will bring about unintentional happiness or satisfaction. Then Kant going on to explain that by using reason in a situation, humans would not be able to attain good will as reason cannot be used on a unconditional basis and that would cloud judgement.