Khaled AlMarwani
Philosophical Ethics PHL270
Dr. Elizabeth F. Cooke
Question # 1: Kant’s Ethics According to my humble reading, Kant is considered the hardest to read, grasp and understand among the philosophers that we came across studying ethics. According to Kant, nothing could be called good without qualification except a good will. And the good will is the desire or the tendency to do your duty because it is your duty, not anything else. Thus, nothing can be gained out of an action. And only this motivation that gives moral worth to do an action; and only that shows you are a good moral person because when a person does his act based on doing just his duty, that action would pass the categorical imperative test (doing act is based on doing the duty (period) actually, not because passing the categorical imperative test for itself) (Kant, the Good Will). Also, it shows you are a good person if you have a good will and vice versa. Only the good will virtue is the virtue that had been accepted by Kant and not anything else. Because you might be courageous or intelligent but that does not mean you would be good moral man because you might be criminal or thief unless if you enhance your courage or intelligence with a good will. Even happiness, must have good will. For a broad example about good will, you do not cheat in exam because you do not cheat not because the professor is present at the room, or you don not steal from the grocery store because you do
Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.
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 is referred to as the “father” of deontological ethics, which is also colloquially referred to as Kantianism, which provides a sophisticated explication of deontology. His philosophy embodies capitulating to one’s maxim, which he beliefs that to be good, however, only if one’s motives are unconditional and irrespective to external reason. The maxim is referred to as the individual’s intrinsic duty or obligation to one’s self or to others, which if applicable to everyone than it is congenial to the universal law. John Stuart Mill is an advocate of the utilitarian theory, which believes that happiness is the manifestation of pleasure and the absence of pain. These pleasures that Mill speaks of is divided into two forms, that
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.
There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.
Again, the reading from Kant proves difficult to read. However, the part discussing examples of duties I found to be quite interesting. In relation to the last example when it mentions that all human beings should help others in need, I came to question if people actually carry out this duty throughout all aspects of their life? I also questioned when people do assist others in need, if they actively think and register their actions as a duty since as human beings we have a moral responsibility to help others.
For years, there has been a growing attitude, not just in the U.S. but across the world, that moral wrongdoing on any level of power should not and will not be tolerated. When the news broke that Volkswagen and its corporate ladder had knowingly and wrongfully altered their vehicles to cheat U.S. emissions standards over the last decade, the consequences that were handed down were significant. Their punishment ranged from a $16.5 billion payout in the form of recalls for half a million vehicles, to the loss of market rights across the world, and indirectly, their reputation. As a result, a new attitude is developing in which society values greater ethical accountability towards individuals and companies.
At one point in their life, everyone has been lied to. Everyone has experienced the feelings of betrayal and vulnerability brought about by having their trust in someone broken. Lying, any reasonable person would agree, is wrong. Famous philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that, in fact, we as humans have a perfect duty to never lie in any situation. While on its surface a theory that is easy to agree with, many challenged Kant’s firm stance by challenging it with theoretical situations in which lying might be the only right thing to do. Kant’s Principle of Humanity falls short by not recognize the possibility of a situation wherein the harm caused by one person’s use as a means outweighs that of another and is therefore an insufficient moral theory.
Kant said that nothing was good in itself except for a good will. By will he meant the ability to act from principle; only when we act from a sense of duty does our act have moral worth. We determine our duty by the categorical imperative. An example of good will would be to use the “Golden Rule,” do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Kant uses this to say that a person’s actions are reflected in their actions toward another person. As a person intends to do good to another person, that makes his effort fit within the categorical imperative. Kant believed that there was one command that was binding on all rational agents—the categorical imperative, that says that we must always act so that the maxim of our action can be consistently willed to be universal law. By maxim, Kant meant the principle or rule that people formulate to determine their conduct. If a maxim could
“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.
Philosophy plays an important role not only in modern society, but also in society as a whole.
In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?
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?
German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality
Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)