Kant and Equality

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.

Society, as we know it, is only possible through humans acting in accordance with a universal moral code. Because we as humans are rational beings and have free choice, we can make our own decisions, can hold ourselves to a standard that we ourselves set, and can act in accordance with our standards, as well as set standards for our own society. However, these standards must be held, otherwise they hold no meaning. Kant uses a black and white tactic, in order to determine which actions are moral and immoral. However, Kant’s downfall is his strength. The black and white tactic makes everything very clear, but it lacks the complexity needed to handle more sophisticated problems and decisions. Black and white does not take into account all the shades of gray between, and Kant needs to take into account all the shades of factors that impact human decision-making.

Another lesson that Christians can learn from Immanuel Kant, is his philosophy that is in line with the Golden Rule. The Golden rule is the principle according to which you shall treat others as you want to be treated by them. The Golden rule implies a person to expect nothing in return. It is a guiding principle for a pure act of altruism. It is one of the formulations of the categorical imperative given by Immanuel Kant. Do to others what you would want to be done to you. Christians should analyze and learn that the categorical imperative exists in the Christian teaching of love. Political or social boundaries do not limit love. It is related to the inner quality of life and depends solely on the feelings and actions of an individual. It

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

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.

An essay written by philosopher Immanuel Kant answers the question, “What is Enlightenment?” Through his own observations and he concluded “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity… the inability to use one own understanding without the guidance of another (Kant).” Kant also recognized that he lives in an enlightened age however not in the age of enlightenment. The same can also provoke thoughts about the current state of the world now. In Kant’s eyes, although he provided the blueprint to enlightenment, no one seems to follow it (Kant). In this paper, I will argue that Kant not only stood correctly about the enlightenment, but society chose not to follow his instructions; precisely, through the unrestricted use

Experimentation in humans wouldn't be ethical to Kant. If we take into account the four categorical imperatives, which are the basis of Kant’s moral theory, experimentation on humans will violate the principle of humanity; treating a person as a merely means to an end and not as an end to themselves. Now, I haven't used the word “never” because I think that Kant’s moral theory would approve experimentation as long as the interest of the experiment is of interest to the participants involved. For example, if I am a cancer patient and a treatment that hasn't been tested has a probability of an eighty percent chance to improve my current situation, I would definitely participate. This hypothetical but real world situation that I just stated would

Aradhya Kunwar 1002375627 James Langlois TUT0015 1. A) In the principle of humanity Immanuel Kant states, “Always treat human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means” (Shafer-Landau, 147). Here by human beings or humanity Kant is referring to “rational and autonomous beings” (Shafer-Landau, 147). Those beings that can distinguish between morally right and wrong, and have the ability to use this knowledge (do what they know to be morally right) to achieve their goals (rational) and those who can use their intellect to make independent decisions (autonomous).

Kantian ethics has its foundation built on the concepts of fairness and justice – two ideas directly opposed by extremist groups. In a world where inequality and injustice often seem to win, Kantian ethics ask us to go beyond our individual desires and act on what are called categorical imperatives. These

Kant suggests that the reason the perfect state does not exist is that the peace is currently at the leisure of the state. These states spend vast amounts of money preparing for war and remain in a constant state of preparedness for war, which Kant says prevents the perfect states. Another current problem is that the leaders of states seek war in order to satisfy their pride for the state. According to Kant, the enlightened are those who arise out from a freedom from restrictions and a freedom of religion. The enlightened must save the human race from the proposals of rulers to limit personal freedom and autonomy. We should have confidence that eventually a single federation of all peoples will exist because it is the way of nature, which allows

“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.

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

a dress - which does not in fact suit her - just to make her feel

According to Kant, moral questions are tied to the “maxims” of one’s own action. One must be able to convince others that his action is good and it is in the general interest of all. The “maxims” that are good to an individual must be will that it is in the general interest of all and therefore must be accepted as a “general law.” This “maxim” can be judged both from the ethical and moral point of view. However, Habermas’s view suggests that in order for a “maxim” to be called a norm, everyone must be potentially affected by it. Only then can it command in the equal interest of all and therefore must be considered as morally binding. The moral commands are expressed as an “ought.” In moral statement the question “what should I do” is transformed