Kant

The strengths and contributions in Kant’s theory include: 1) he marks a distinction between duty and inclination to make clear that morality is more than personal preference, 2) counters the “utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit” (no discrimination), 3) gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. The distinction between moral and inclination is that moral actions have to be nether self contradictory and universal. An example of duty is the prima face duties, such as fidelity, gratitude, and justice, proposed by W.D. Ross. One noteworthy strength of Kant’s theory is that it is good for both believers and non-believers of God and it opposes human lives as a means to the end. A morally good man needs to have good will and fulfils his duty. Kant’s ethical theory is based on duty as we ought to act morally as to do our duty- to obey the moral law. There is simply no room for feelings, inclination, love or occasion when related to moral decisions. Kant’s emphasis on our duty is similar and can be treated as compatible with the Ten Commandments in Christianity as its believers’ moral duty is to obey the Ten Commandments. Kant’s theory of ethics rejects utilitarianism, the “doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority,” which grants more fairness towards the

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

Kant upheld systematic laws as the model of rational principles. A characteristic of systematic laws is that they are universal, such as the law that when heated, gas will expand. Kant thought that moral laws or principles must have universality to be rational. He derives the categorical imperative out of the notion that we should be willing to adopt those moral principle that can be universalized, that is, those which we can imagine that everyone could act upon or adopt as their principle. Thus, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is, “Never act in such a way that I could not also will that my maxim should be a universal law (P.31).” By maxim, he means the rule or principle on which you act. Consider the example Kant gives of giving a false promise. Making false promises is wrong and therefore could not be a universal law, because every rational being would not adopt this as a principle of action. In the Hill case, if Paul Hill kills the doctor than it is morally permissible for everyone else to kill someone they disagree with. Therefore, Hill’s actions were not justified, because killing cannot be a universal law.

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.

According to Kant, there is one imperative that – without presupposing as its condition and any other purpose to be attained by a certain course of conduct immediately- commands this conduct. This imperative is categorical” (Kant 30). The categorical imperative is not affected by the matter of the action or even by the result; it is only concerned with the principle followed by the action. The fact that the categorical imperative contains the essential good and is unaffected by circumstance makes it the imperative of morality (Kant 30). The categorical imperative is an unconditional imperative that leaves the will no free discretion in regards to the opposite; only the categorical imperative carries the necessity that we demand for in a law (Kant 33). The categorical imperative serves as a test for morality. According to Kant, for an action to fit under the categorical imperative, it must contain no contradiction that limits it (Kant 33). Since the moral law is the categorical imperative, any action that contains a contradiction fails the categorical imperative test and is immoral. Summarily, morality works according to a categorical imperative because our actions must be motivated by duty rather than a calculated favorable

Immanuel Kant explains different concepts in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals; one includes “The Categorical Imperative” that I agree with. Kant states “I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant, 113), which describes Categorical Imperative. The reason a person acts should be based on reason and if it were something they wanted to become universalized or not.

Before Kant wrote this book, he observed fallacies in society such as thinking about the consequences of an action, rather than if the action itself is good. Other fallacies include that humans do not typically think about how a decision will impact their fellow humans. Kant noted these deficiencies in society and as a result hypothesized the universal categorical imperative stating one “ought never to act in such a way that [one] couldn’t also will that maxim on which [one] should be a universal law” (Kant 11). Kant offered this categorical imperative to answer most questions of morality simply by asking oneself, “Would I be content for my maxim…to hold as a universal law, for myself as well as for others” (Kant 12). The reason Kant’s universal imperative is foremost to other ethical theories is because if we were to conceptualize our decision on a grand scale using Kant’s universal imperative, we would un-biasedly conclude that either our decision would deteriorate society or that our decision would be of benefit to society. For example, in reference to the act of lying, Kant explains that a person “could will the lie but not a universal law to life; for such a law would result in there being no promises at all” (Kant 12). Similarly, if I promised a person to vouch for them and tell the truth at a court hearing and instead I recall the situation inaccurately for my own gain or for certain benefits, I am contributing to the injustice of the World. In contrast, if I were to get on the stand and ask myself “what would happen if no one got on the witness stand and told the accurate story,” I would have substantiated that a World with no truth is a World filled with criminals who do not receive justice. Kant’s universal categorical imperative is applicable to the vast majority of moral questions, making it the

To do something truly without receiving when giving, that is called respect to the moral law. Nevertheless, his philosophy was that for an act to be moral the act must be done out of one’s moods that it is one’s duty, no matter what the result. If for even one second you think about how the act could benefit you or act because of a joy or happiness that you get for it, and then the action is considered immoral. This is where I see an error in his theory. For example, if I was at the store and the very attractive clerk gave me change for a twenty instead of a ten, and first I realized it was my moral obligation to give her money back, (decision made) and my second thought was that my honesty may help me carry on a meaningful conversation with her which may lead to more, then my “duty” by giving her money back was immoral because I took in consideration my own well-being; even though if she was 70 years old and fat I would have still given her change back just as quickly as I did with the attractive clerk. Another of Kant works is the theory of Law. It’s helpful to justify the concept that Kant stated that “a good will is essentially good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations.” Since it’s appropriate to the development and guidance of a good will than the values and morals of the person view will be acceptable. In his view of morality, self-interest and duty

Kant’s categorical imperative comes from Kant’s Deontology, the work of Immanuel Kant. Categorical imperative is defined as “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”. This ideaology believes that an act should be judge based upon its ability to be willed as a universal law an apply to everyone. Under Kant’s categorical imperative something is right or wrong if it can be applied to

To introduce the hypothetical imperative, think about studying for a really hard test. Your grade is not likely to be considered passing, unless you get an A on this final. You’ve been studying all week, but you just can’t seem to retain the material. So what should you do? You need to pass this class, so does it really matter whether or not the actions you take to do so are morally correct? You decide to cheat. You get the A, you pass the class, and your parents are proud of you. This is the hypothetical imperative- if you wish to obtain a certain goal, you ought to take certain means in order to reach it. The categorical imperative states that “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Copleston 324). This imperative is the one that holds moral worth, because it demands that before taking an action, it must first be considered a universal law. By that, Kant means that it the action you desire to take cannot be taken by the whole of society, then you shouldn’t even be doing it yourself. If it is not an everyday action, that every person could also do, then it is morally

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 certain types of actions (including murder, theft, and lying) were absolutely prohibited, even in cases where the action would bring about more happiness than the alternative. For Kantians, there are two questions that we must ask ourselves whenever we decide to act: first, can I rationally will that everyone act as I propose to act? If the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. Second, does my action respect the goals of human beings rather than merely using them for my own purposes? Again, if the answer is no, then we must not perform the action. More importantly, people are uniquely morally valuable. People are uniquely morally valuable because they have good will, which is constrained by reason to “respect the inherent dignity of all rational agents.” Everyone is of equal inherent dignity in virtue of having a free will (a will capable of goodness). Thus, we have no rational basis to favor our own will when acting. In short, people cannot use other people as mere means to achieve their goals, regardless the consequences, because we all have good will.

For Kant, in order to determine the morality of a particular behavior it is necessary to be able to appraise that behavior rationally—free of emotional coercion. According to his Universal Law Formulation (ULF) a moral act is one that we can rationally will that others carry out as well. By the same token, to behave in a way that is immoral is to conduct oneself in such a manner that we cannot rationally will that others comport themselves in.

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.

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.