Kant: Formulas of Universal Law and Humanity

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

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.

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.

Kant begins the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by outlining four principles of morality. The first principle of morality, which will be explored in this paper, states that actions are only morally good if they are undertaken from a sense of duty. Kant subsequently develops this principle as the categorical imperative of morality. This paper begins with a comprehensive description of the categorical imperative, its contrast to the hypothetical imperative, and its role in Kant’s moral theory. In the second section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant introduces the idea of universal maxims and their importance in morality. Thus, this paper will examine maxims and the connection between universality and morality. Finally,

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant, we are presented with this conception of Kant’s called “the Form of Law.” With the discussion of the Form of Law, we will also come to encounter both moral law and the categorical imperative. Kant’s notion of the Form of Law, we will later see has a great deal of significance within the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the discussion of the Form of Law’s significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant also provides us with a response to a claim offered by David Hume. Also, provided in this paper will be both a discussion of correctness of action and the normative requirement. In this paper, I will present Kant’s conception of the Form of Law, as well as its significance in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and finally I will conclude the paper by evaluating this analysis of the structure of correctness in action and the normatively required.

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

In Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant discusses morality to revolve around imperatives that remain true and applicable to all situations. Categorical imperatives are rules that must be followed regardless of one’s personal desires which may exemplify greed, power, money. Kant recognizes that these “abilities and traits can become extremely evil and destructive if the will behind these gifts of nature and the character they produce is not good” (13). Kant’s moral principles are based on a priori concepts that are based on reasoning and investigations. A priori reasoning encourages people to act out of duty with the reasoning that people do actions that reflect those duties.

Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative determines what our moral duties are. There

Kant's Categorical Imperative determines the right action to be the one that is capable of becoming a universal law. In this regard, Kant argues that when decisions are made on the basis of human rights and duties, they fit the definition of being ethical because if everyone follows the same action, the world becomes a better place. To apply this test, one should answer the question of "what kind of a world would it be if everyone behaved this way?"

I will be addressing Kant’s claim that “Our duties towards animal are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” What Kant is trying to say is that our duties towards animals are in a way an indirect indication of our duties as humans. So for this reason, if we are nice to animals, we are indirectly doing our responsibilities as human beings. Kant also believes that doing good to animals can positively improve the way we treat others, therefore, making us better individuals. When Kant said, “if he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” This means that if we are not hurting ourselves by being kind to animals, then we should be

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

It can be difficult to stop thinking negative things, especially when they are personal, but the sooner the negativity stops, the sooner the brain can heal and not become trapped into believing the negativity. According to Kant’s categorical imperative “Always act in such a way that you can will that the maxim behind your action can be willed as a universal law” (Hinman, 2013, p. 167). The test for the maxim is whether people can consistently fill their minds with more positive thoughts than negative thoughts. By positive self-talk, people believe the positive message and the brain becomes less likely to think negatively again. The relevant act description is morally correct and perhaps even praiseworthy even though not following the maxim would not be contrary to the Formula of

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

In Elements of Pure Practical Reason Book, I, Immanuel Kant, a prominent late Enlightenment Era German philosopher discusses his most famous ethical theory, the “Categorical Imperative.” The “Categorical Imperative” is a proposed universal law in stating all humans are forbidden from certain actions regardless of consequences. Although this is the general definition of this ethical theory, the Categorical Imperative” exists in two above formulations, A strict interpretation of Categorical Imperative and a more liberal interpretation. This Kantian moral theory shapes almost all of Immanuel Kant’s work on morality and ethics, particularly his “a priori principle” on human rights. Although Kant ultimately developed enlightenment era political theory, many of his views are often seen as bizarre or even controversial at times, particularly in regards his “a priori principles” of the people and the Categorical Imperative itself. By further analysis of the categorical imperatives and critiques, objections, and the theory’s connections with the “a priori principles,” Kantian philosophy implication as well as critic’s views on the philosophy will be readily apparent.

What is the duty that motivates our actions and to give them moral value? Kant distinguishes two kinds of law produced by reason. Given some end we wish to achieve, reason can provide a hypothetical imperative, or rule of action for achieving that end. A hypothetical imperative says that if you wish to buy a new car, then you must determine what sort of cars are available for purchase. Conceiving of a means to achieve some desired end is by far the most common employment of reason. But Kant has shown that the acceptable conception of the moral law cannot be merely hypothetical. Our actions cannot be moral on the ground of some conditional purpose or goal. Morality requires an unconditional statement of one's duty. And in fact, reason produces an absolute statement of moral action. The moral imperative is unconditional; that is, its imperative force is not tempered by the conditional if I want to achieve some end, then do X. It simply states, do X. Kant believes that reason dictates a categorical imperative for moral action.1