Kant 's Philosophy Of The Metaphysics Of Morals Essay

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral

example is of a man who is suffering from many misfortunes in life and wishes to

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

The good will calls for certain obligations known as duties. Kant suggests that duty ought to be done out of acknowledgement of the importance of moral law. The first proposition of duty that Kant puts forward states that actions are good only when they are committed out of a sense of duty. Moral actions are not done in the desire of a particular result, and the importance is instead found in the purpose behind the action. Kant argues that moral worth is never found in what is hoped to be attained by a certain choice, but in the maxim according to which the action was done. Duty should always be done out of recognition of significance of abiding by the moral law.

Immanuel Kant, in “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, gives three propositions. I’m going to explain the second proposition using the help from the “Friend of Mankind” example he gives. The example state’s “ this person has been a friend to mankind, but his mind has become clouded by a sorrow of his own that has extinguished all feeling for how others are faring. He still has the power to benefit others in distress, but their need leaves him untouched because he is too preoccupied with his own. But now he tears himself out of his dead insensibility and acts charitably purely from duty, without feeling any want or liking so to behave.”

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

Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or

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

In Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, the theory of ethics is majorly based on acting according to duty. From this thought he created The Categorical Imperative; “act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will. This is the only condition in which a will can never be in conflict with itself, and such an imperative is categorical.” (42) Basically, morality is needed to choose “right” over “the pleasing.” From this, there are two formulations of the categorical imperative; the universalization of one’s principles, and to treat everyone as an end and rather than a means. Failing to act according to reason can lead to an inconsistency of the will in one or more of the following

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

As humans, we are forced to make decisions constantly during the day, whether they are decisions that require a lot of thought or quick decisions we make on the fly. However, when we make decisions we need criteria to base our decisions from. These criteria are called our morals. Morals are a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. A person’s morals can determine what type of environment they were raised in and how they were taught to carry themselves. However, while morals play an intricate role in the human decision making process, German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant delved deeper into the concept of morals and developed the fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals.

(Kant 30). One should act only in ways in which one can will one’s maxim to be a universal law (Kant 34). This is something that someone should be able to figure out quickly on their own, however, it can be problematic. To see if you can actually universalize your maxim, Kant provides two other criteria of the categorical imperative. These remaining two parts have to do with respecting autonomy and freedom of humanity (Kant 45, 57). These also connect more with Socrates’ philosophy than the first part of the categorical imperative. Kant proposes that all humans, as they are rational beings, can never be used as a means to an end because they are ends in themselves (Kant 41). As a result, everyone must treat each other as ends in themselves, which results in the kingdom of ends, where the individual both legislates and is subject to these laws (Kant 45). This seems to be a wonderful way to decide how to act, assuming that all humans respect their own autonomy. Kant proves this to be the case, because humans have reason, and cannot help but see themselves as an intelligence, more than just a body (Kant 61). While Kant’s guideline could provide a yes or no answer can be very helpful, however, it can be difficult sometimes if a situation could go either way. In these instances, it would be useful to engage in Socratic dialogue in order to answer important questions.

The categorical imperative is a philosophical hypothesis delivered by Immanuel Kant. Constrained just by the rule of universalizability, the even minded reason of any rational being grasps the obvious fundamental to be: "Act only to that maxim whereby can at the same time will that it should become universal law." That is, each unique individual perspectives itself as choosing, by its decision to act positively, that everyone (including itself) will reliably go about according to the same general standard later on. This affirmation of the moral law, Kant kept up, gives a strong, helpful procedure for surveying particular human exercises of a couple of specific groupings.

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?