Kant elucidate the meaning of human good by talking about three qualities: power, pleasure and

In this paper, I will argue Kant’s categorical imperative's through a condensed summation of his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals with specific regard for the need for categorical imperative and how it's flaws can disband the efficacy of his claim.

Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals, published in 1785, is Kant’s first major work in ethics. Like the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, the Groundwork is the short and easy-to-read version of what Kant deals with at greater length and complexity in his Critique. The Critique of Practical Reason, published three years later, contains greater detail than the Groundwork and differs from it on some points—in the Critique of Practical Reason, for instance, Kant places greater emphasis on ends and not just on motives—but this summary and analysis will cover only the general points of Kant’s ethics, which

Kant believed that no consequence could have fundamental moral worth because the only thing that is good in and of it self is the Good Will. The Good Will freely chooses to do something precisely because it is one’s moral duty, and that duty is dictated by reason.

Kant begins the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by outlining four principles of morality. The first principle of morality, which will be explored in this paper, states that actions are only morally good if they are undertaken from a sense of duty. Kant subsequently develops this principle as the categorical imperative of morality. This paper begins with a comprehensive description of the categorical imperative, its contrast to the hypothetical imperative, and its role in Kant’s moral theory. In the second section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant introduces the idea of universal maxims and their importance in morality. Thus, this paper will examine maxims and the connection between universality and morality. Finally,

According to Kant, an action can only be morally right when it is motivated by duty alone, as opposed to being motivated by duty and emotion combined or just pure emotion (Kant, Groundwork, 397). In order to defend this statement, I will begin with explaining Kant’s view of morality and what kind of judgments we make in order to discover what morality is and how it relates to the moral law. I will then proceed to explain how Kant defines duty and how it relates to having a good will. Finally, I will explain what exactly the moral law commands and tie it back in to why morally correct actions are purely motivated by duty.

Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics of morals offer a well thought out and complex set of formulations that give rational beings the opportunity to be autonomous from outside factors and make moral decisions. In theory, Kant’s metaphysics of morals and a careful use of the categorical imperative are needed to create what Kant describes as the “kingdom of ends”. Kant oversimplifies certain questions certain ideas, presuming the answers are “rational” when in reality the answers really depend on multiple assumptions that cannot be nullified in making moral judgments. After a carefully researched analysis of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, why the metaphysics of morals is necessary according to Kant, and critiques of Kant’s metaphysics of morals, my contention is that Kant’s metaphysics of morals is flawed, not wholly applicable to the real current world, and therefore not convincing.

Immanuel Kant believes that to posses moral worth is more important than to possess intelligence, humor, strength, or any other talent of the mind or body. Moral worth according to Kant, has absolute value because without good will theses attributes can be put to negative uses

Kant argues that humans are the only beings capable of being ends in themselves. He believes that since human were created that they are valuable. Human should not be use a mere end to gain something. Every human is valuable and should treat as such. Human are the only one who can decrease each other’s value. Human should respect the right of each other and avoid hurting each other. Human should help each other reach how valuable they are.

In this text Kant argue that the one thing in the world, or even out of it, truly good is the "good will". As well he points out that the qualities of temperament (Intelligence, judgment, wit), other talents of the mind, and gifts of fortune (honour, power and wealth) are without doubt good, but they can also be extremely bad and harmful. Contrary to a "good will" which is naturally good in spite of not having positive effects. Additionally, in this text Kant mentions some general principles concerning moral duties. First, actions are genuinely moral good only when they started without any inclination and for the sake of duty alone. Then, an action done from duty has its moral worth not because the results expected from it, but rather by the

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant undermines many of our moral certainties. Our Western philosophical tradition teaches that choosing the right path to virtue is in ones own hands. Aristotle’s understanding of virtue comes from our moral bearings, which are taken from exemplars of virtue. Kant’s idea of morality is sought from a single individual. Only few people are universally accepted as this ideal conception of morality, such figures like Gandhi or Jesus. Kant believes that we cannot derive this idea of morality simply from examples of those around us but we can only decide morality from a specific principle. This notion of morality is rooted from an idea that is not used by most individuals. He has little faith 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.

Kant believes that a person who does something because it is the morally right thing to do is especially commendable, more than a person who does something for some sort of gain. Human beings usually act out of self-interest. Whether its good or bad, we are doing it for ourselves, for someone important or for our loved ones. Psychologically, we would think our actions are right during desperate times. However we must realize that, during times like these, we may not be making morally right decisions. Moral doings involves the willingness to

Kant's idea seems to be that we treat someone as an end only insofar as we act toward him or her in a way that he or she can understand as appropriate or justified: we should be able to explain our reasons in such a way that the person will see the reasonableness of acting in the way we propose. Thus, for example, Kant writes: "he who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another human being merely as a means, without the latter at the same time containing in himself the end. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting toward him, and therefore cannot himself contain the end of this action.”

First, as growing up I was told to not to harm others physical and psychological states. Kant also believes in the idea that not to use anyone for a means to an end. As I make post-conventional moral decision, I found myself leaning more onto Kantian ethics of not to use someone for a means to an end and the golden mean. Basically, decisions I make in society reduce and/or no harm applied onto others while doing things in moderate pace or amount. Kant believed that by having “moral personality” we are superior among other species. Psychologically speaking, intelligence can be enhanced

Kant consistently insists that CI does not involve maxims and that the ends mentioned in C2 and the realm of ends in C3 confront the formalist assertions in the Second Critique. Therefore, Kant’s Second Critique attempts to repair the theory and eliminate the problems of his pre-critical writings by introducing a formalistic approach. Kant’s earlier writings concentrated on the notion of the good, either psychologically as seen in the Prize Essay, or as unconditional good and the associate necessary ends in his later essays (e. g., The Second Sensation in the Canon of Pure Reason). In Groundwork, Kant attaches the good with the willing and associates it with the moral law. Then, he gradually relies on the notion of moral law instead of the notion of the good. In the Groundwork, the notion of the good does not rely on sensation or feeling; it directly derives from the rational. Kant points out that every motive has an intended effect on the world. When desire drives us, we first examine the possibilities that the world leaves open to us, selecting some effect at which we wish to aim. But, if we act in accord with practical moral law, we encounter a significant difference since the only possible object of the practical law is the Good, since the Good is always an appropriate object for the practical law. Viewing the Good as rational consolidates Kant’s previous doctrines in First Critique and Groundwork. Reason