Kant On Volunteering

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

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

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

Kant last example was helping others, it was the act of giving nothing to charity. Let everyone be as happy as Heaven pleases, or as he can make himself; I will take nothing from him nor even envy him, only I do not wish to contribute anything to his welfare or to his assistance in distress. Although it is possible that a universal law of nature might exist in agreement with that maxim, it is impossible to will that such a principle should have the universal power of a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would deny itself, in as much as many cases might occur in which one would have need of the love and sympathy of others, and in which, by such a law of nature, jumped from his own will, he would deprive himself of all hope of the help he desires.

If a woman walks out of a fast food restaurant and sees a homeless man and gives the man her food is this considered acting in accordance with duty? What about if a woman and a child walks out of a fast food restaurant and sees a homeless man and the woman tells the child to give the man your burger? Does this considered acting from duty or in? What is acting from duty, and in acting in accordance with duty anyway? Well, Immanuel Kant (studied philosophy) had a theory “the class of actions in accordance with duty must be distinguished from the class of actions performed from duty.” In English terms when acting from duty your intention is acting morally but, when acting in accordance with duty you will do the right thing for the wrong reason.

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.

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

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

Kant, however, believed that we should only be held accountable for what is within our control—once we make a choice, the results are beyond our control and we can only be held accountable for our intent. I believe that the Kantians’ perspective on intent is much more reasonable than the consequentialist perspective and it is more in-line with our current justice system. Involuntary manslaughter charges and the insanity defense are both examples of how important intent is when it comes to determining consequences for an action. In addition to this, Kant’s principle of humanity states that we must “always treat a human being (yourself included) as an

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

Kant believed that the one unconditional good thing is good will (Fincke, 2009). In other words, any other candidate for 'good ' – such as courage or happiness – can be turned evil through immoral intentions. For example, it takes courage to stand up for someone getting bullied in the park, however, it also takes courage to bully someone in the park. As you can see, courage without good will, or good intentions, can be the downfall of another person. An argument that is well known to be made by Kant goes as follows; a shoe keeper might do what is

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.

In Kant’s mind we all have good intentions when doing something, and for such reason, we can’t be accounted guilty for doing something wrong if the original intention was to do something good. Basically, he implied

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.

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)