Kant And Kant 's Universal Law Essay

For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important. Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and

One of Kant’s more controversial cases in which he stuck to the idea that lying would be wrong is that of the murderer at the door. If some murderer set on killing your roommate were to come to your door and ask

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.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

7. Bluffing can be ethical, depending on the circumstances and how it is employed. In fact, Beatty Samuelson, in Essentials of Business Law, points out the “Kantian evasion or plater”, which serves as the basis for deceiving someone in an ethical way. She describes it as “a truthful statement that is nonetheless misleading” (36). For instance, Kant’s example of a murderer coming to our door -asking for someone who is in our own home and who he wants to kill – illustrates an instance when answering questions fully could lead to terrible consequences (36). In that case, Samuelson argues, telling the truth and pointing the killer to the victim would be very costly, so it is better to employ Kant’s evasion principle and reply with a truthful, but misleading statement.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

It is commendable that he never backed down from the belief that lying is never acceptable, even to prevent a murder. He defended himself by stating moral actions are not measured by their consequences and if a person lied to a murderer, he or she is now denying the murderer the freedom to rationalize his own actions and perhaps decide not to kill his intended victim. Kant feels that by lying to the murderer the murderer becomes just a means to an end instead of being treated like an end as well. He has essentially been stripped of free will in that situation which goes against everything Kant believes to be

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

As a general articulation, there is very little contention that would emerge when one expresses that lying is wrong. However, when proffered theoretical circumstances start to crawl further into different circumstances, people will start to dodge and legitimize why lying would be satisfactory in specific circumstances.

premise of lying. A man is forced to borrow money which he knows he will never

Kant gives an example for why lying is not a right action. He states that there is a man who needs money even though he knows he will not be able to pay it back, his maxim is “’I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done’” (Kant 534). Kant explains that this maxim would not work as a universal law because every banker would not believe someone who says they are going to pay money back, therefore would never give out any loads. He goes on to explain how people should treat each other. He argues that it is not acceptable to treat someone as “a merely as a means but “at the same time as an ends” (Kant 536). He says that to treat someone as a merely a means is to treat them merely as a machine in ones plan and involving them without their ability to consent. He argued that people needed to be treated as an ends meaning that people needed to be able to enter agreements of their own free will and without manipulation (Kant 537). Kant believed that treating people merely as a means was without good will and therefore could never produce a right action.

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

Meaning that a maxim is a principle of how one acts and how others should act too. According to Kant, one should not be an exception to lie. In an event that one allegedly lies, and the victim was coming out of their hiding spot, “and the murderer encounters him while going away and perpetrates his deed on him, then you can by right be prosecuted as the author of his death” (8, 427). Still, one cannot possibly have for seen those events. Under these circumstances, Kant insists the liar is still partially responsible for the victim’s downfall. This notion that is clearly irrational demonstrates how little Kant has to argue about this topic.

Do you think there is a morally significant difference between lying and deception? Explain. While Kant forbids lying, would he condone deception? In other words, would Kant support something like the following situation: the victim comes to cross-roads.  She lays a false trail leading to the left, dropping her handkerchief and leaving footprints in the mud. Then she carefully goes on the right-hand road, ensuring no footprints are visible for a while, hoping that the murderer will see the false trail, come to believe that she went left, and thus permit her to escape. (Rely on the CI of Universality & Respect for your answer.)

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?