Kant Deontological Theory

Under the Formula of Universal Law no maxim is permissible if there exists in that maxim’s conception or universal application any contradiction; one of the most apparently relevant actions to consider under this formulation is lying. If in cases when I wanted others to believe something contrary to what I believe to be true I chose to lie, I would soon find that others would discredit all that I say. Further If everyone where to lie when it is to their advantage, no one would believe anyone else when they spoke. For these reasons under the Formula of Universal Law lying is not permissible, at any time, in any case. But it intuitively seems that there are times in which lying is permissible.

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.

The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories are the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises.

Kant believed duties were absolute and unconditional and called them categorical imperatives. A categorical imperative is all people have a “perfect” duty in that if their actions were universalized, there would be no contraindications. An example is you came to a fork in the road and you had to make a decision to either go left or right. Whatever decision you made at that moment in time, you would have to make it a law by universalizing it. A nursing example would be a 19 year old girl was in the critical care unit in the hospital and is terrified. Hospital policy states they only allow visit every three hours for five minutes in the critical care unit. The girl is begging the nurse to allow her parents to stay with her. The nurse follows deontology, and will not allow the parents to stay because it is against the rules.

While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human

example is of a man who is suffering from many misfortunes in life and wishes to

1. In his discussion of the first formulation of the categorical imperative (Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law) Kant draws a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Introduce this formulation of the categorical imperative and discuss how we should make the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties.

Immanuel Kant is widely-regarded as one of the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time, with his teachings having more influence on other contemporary thinkers than any other philosopher of the 18th century. Fighting against the governmental and monarchical constraints of the time, Kant began his work by maintaining that all humans are free beings, who out to think autonomously, free from the dictates of external authority (SEP, 2011, pp.1). Kant

in a way that we can will the maxim of our action to become a universal law.

law of nature that unites man and animal: all beings must die, must kill or be killed. In this way,

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

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

Universal ethics, defined by Immanuel Kant, is an ethical theory that applies to rational beings. An act is morally right when the will is perfectly aligned with duty. That is, an action has to be motivated by duty to have moral worth. The responsibilities of duty are universal; they are instilled in all rational beings and apply to all people, in all possible situations. To understand Kantian ethics, we have to understand its formulation, the categorical imperative. The imperative is an order that follows from the command of reason that tells a rational beings what they must do. It cannot be opposed, refused, or modified. In this sense, the categorical imperative is different from hypothetical imperative, which is the if-then structure.

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

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.