Kant: The Perfect State

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.

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.

Lying the one form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him “just assumed that anyone who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit.”(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. “ While lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect others to be sincere.” (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either

Prompt: Kant argues that in Groundwork, it is morally wrong to not develop talents: What is his argument and is he correct?

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.

Immanuel Kant was an atypical philosopher from the Enlightenment Era. His ethical views differed from other philosophers during the time. While most views were based on consequences, his ethical views were deontological, meaning that he judged actions based on the intention rather that the result of the action. He believed that morality should not be based on emotion, but on reason. You perform an action not because it will provide you a means to an end, but because it was reasonably right, and based on good will. Rational human beings are ends in themselves. He did not believe in the idea of a conscious, he believed that we are not born with one and that God did not give us one. However, he did believe that God gave us the ability to reason. These views are displayed in his Categorical Imperatives. Before I go over the Categorical Imperatives, I will define his distinction between a Categorical Imperative and a Hypothetical one. According to Kant, all imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. If an action is good only as a means to something else, it is hypothetical. If an act is good in and of itself, without regard to a further end, it is categorical (Textbook, 515). Using this reasoning, you could state that most other philosopher’s views during this time period are hypothetical imperatives. Kant’s Categorical Imperatives are what he thinks members of a society should be doing. He bases his views of actions on the question of would my action make

Kantianism is a moral theory that derives universal, absolute rules of morality by starting with the human qualities of autonomy and rationality. Immanuel Kant, the creator of the theory, believed that this combination of autonomy and rationality has infinite value. [1] As such, Kant argued that utilitarian viewpoints are irrational because they may ignore this infinite value by aiming to increase the happiness of many through the sacrificing of the happiness of a few, thus treating people merely as means to an ends. [1] Kant therefore argued that morality should not be about measuring outcomes by pleasure or pain, but by a good will. In fact, he believed that morality could not be achieved outside of the qualities

The disparity and divide among various levels of the society locally and globally are rooted in many factors. Unfortunately, growing effects of globalization appear to widen the abyss between the rich and poor, leaving no hopes that eventually the world could collectively and uniformly prosper and poverty would be completely eradicated. The natural resources are not evenly distributed on the various continents on the planet Earth. While some countries enjoy the wealth and prosperity as a result of abundant resources, such oil and natural gas reserves, others are stricken by natural disasters and persistent droughts, having no access to clean water, fertile soil, or any sustainable means of existence. Blaming eruption of violence and flourishing

Kant believes that the Status Quo is good, once you have peace. In order to maintain peace there has to be an agreement to the status quo which will then lead to perpetual peace. He believes in non-intervention: don’t mess with other countries. A state cannot expand it’s territory for any reason. The Status Quo must be accepted by all. Kant believes in two ends of humanity; either universal peace or universal war. He states that in a progressive view of history, this is the natural progression of the countries. This would not have been originally possible without war, and now that humans and states have been established everywhere we don’t need war. Eventually, we are going to achieve universal peace, that is if we don’t kill each other trying. Kant’s preliminary articles outline what should not be done. First, treaties and intent of war need to be eliminated because we need permanent peace. Any inclination of war must be removed. Second, no nation can be acquired. This is the respect of sovereignty and the current balance of power, the Status Quo is permanent. “No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation.” Third, standing armies are prohibited. However, the National Guard is acceptable as long as they maintain normal lives during times of peace. And fourth, no interference of any kind, and non intervention of the

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 (1731) was commonly known as the opponent of the utilitarianism. Kant believed that there are certain actions such as the murder, theft and lying that were prohibited regardless of the associated happiness that the action would bring. According to Kantian, there exist two questions, which human beings need to ask themselves before acting. One needs to rationalize, if everyone can act as he/ she proposes to act. If any case one gets no as an answer then such individual should not perform the intended act. Furthermore one also needs to consider whether his / her actions respect the human being goals or just merely using them for own selfish ambitions.

The relationship between free choice and moral politicians in the eye’s of Kant is such that, in order to have long lasting peace in the world it is required that people with authority to make choices for their states that do not just benefit them as an individual in the short run, but the state as a whole in the long run. Thus the coining of the phrase, moral politicians. This idea of moral politicians is tied closely to that of Kant’s theory of perpetual peace. In this theory there are three parts that must hold: all states have a republican constitution, a federation of states, and cosmopolitan law.

Immanuel Kant gives two definitions of perpetual peace. In his first definition, he states that in order for perpetual peace to be achieved, the constitution of every state has to be republican. For under a republican constitution, the people do not have much power, which means they do not have consent to declare war. Which he believes is good because they need resources which can be expensive. furthermore, reparation after the war can be costly (pg. 21). His second idea for as to do with states. He believes the only way for perpetual peace is if a league of nation is created. As he states, “Peace cannot be established or secured except by a compact among nations” (pg. 123). He goes on to state that, war is even more evitable if states are

Kant opens with discussion of how philosophy contains three sciences; logic, ethics, and physics. Throughout the entire section of reading, I found myself to be struggling quite a lot (which is not such a surprise since we were told in advance that Kant can be very difficult to comprehend). I found myself slightly understanding aspects only to be thrown off just a little later and somehow end up lost by the end. However, there was a part that I found to be very interesting (that I could actually understand)! This was when he discusses specialization; how one person cannot do everything, but rather each person specializes in one aspect of the whole and works to make that part perfect. My question then is if this could be related to the