Kant And Intrinsic Worth: What Is Intrinsic Worth?

Immanuel Kant, it is always immoral and wrong to lie. There are ethical absolutes according to Kant's deontological ethical framework, and one of those ethical absolutes is that it is absolutely, categorically, wrong to tell a lie. Kantian categorical imperative is the assertion that it is imperative to always tell the truth. One of the reasons why Kant believed it was ethically correct to tell the truth and never to lie is based on the fact that people have what Kant believed to be "intrinsic worth

Immanuel Kant greatly influenced moral philosophy. He thought of moral value as a unique and universally identifiable property, as an absolute value rather than a relative value. He showed that many practical goods are good only in states-of-affairs described by a sentence containing an "if" clause, e.g., in the sentence, "Sunshine is only good if you do not live in the desert." Further, the "if" clause often described the category in which the judgment was made (art, science, etc.). Kant described

focus on motive. When I think about Rickys case, if I were going to argue to keep Ricky alive, I would have to argue from Kants point that people have intrinsic worth, or dignity. Kant states that people are irreplaceable, so why should we “pull the plug” on Ricky? Isnt his life worth something? If I think about the motive to keep Ricky alive, I can also argue from the stance of Kant and the first categorical imperative saying basically that you should treat others as you would want to be treated. I

Intrinsic value is traditionally defined as value that something has in itself and in its own right (Zimmerman, 2014). For such reason, rational moral agents have a moral obligation to preserve the biosphere because animals and plants have an intrinsic value. I understand a counter argument of mine is that plants and animals are used instrumentally by rational moral agents, entirely for pleasure which is unnecessary. Extrinsic value is described as something valuable which can be put to use instrumentally

Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who wrote his famous ethical theory which says that reason but not consequence is the base of morality. This means there are certain things which we ought to do and certain things which we ought not to do because we are being rational. Kant was a deontologist/non consequentialist who believed that the rightness and wrongness of an act depends on the nature of the actions or on the morals. Moral view of Kant is categorical imperative which means clear order and

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. In the excerpt Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant presents a profound argument that how right an action is, is determined by intention of the principle

In this paper, I shall argue that while a naturalistic moral theory Mill’s Utilitarism is a flexible and sensitive to circumstances (act and rule) as long as overall happiness is the end goal and promotes social harmony, that his position is a lacks of autonomy/integrity of the moral agent, is a negative responsibility because utilitarianism is an excessively demanding theory, act utilitarianism may require us to commit morally reprehensible acts, there is sometimes conflict of rules for the rule

it is unclear of the exact origins, the author provides that throughout history, the concept of human dignity has changed throughout time and has held different meaning in different eras like the Renaissance, and by different people like Hobbes and Kant. In addition, for instance, human dignity, was a theological theme developed by the church produced through faithful reflection on revealed truth rather than scripture. A philosophical

consequentialist approach, which attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisfaction, but also to various objects and processes in the natural environment (Singer, 2011). John Rawls states that the principle of fairness is important as it applies to individuals the principle of fairness are a link between the two principles of social or political justice and individual obligations to comply with specific social practices (Pogge, 2007). By expanding the scope of what one considers to be an ‘end’ to

amendment; making it acceptable to abort a pregnancy within the first trimester (Vaughn 119). The main argument on abortion is really a debate on human life, and whether it has value from the moment of conception. Each and every human life is composed of intrinsic value, and has the right to live. Killing an innocent human being is wrong, and fetuses are innocent human beings; making it morally wrong and impermissible to abort a fetus (Vaughn 143). In modern day society we are often faced with moral issues