Kantian Ethics And The Categorical Imperative Essay

SPJ is the ethics code that most relates to this cases. The reporter who is writing the story top priority is to seek the truth and report it. A story involving a political figure has to be taken seriously. He/she has to be fair to both parties involved. Even though Senator Adams did not give a comment to the story, a good journalist who wants to report the truth is not afraid to get a comment from a person in Adams office. If no one is available for comment the journalist should publish what he or she have and then continue to update the story. As the journalist they should keep developing the story and to minimize harm. The story is involving one man who is accused of sexual harassment against eight women. Compassion needs to be shown towards the women who have come forward. It takes a lot to stand up to someone such as Senator Adams. The journalist should not name Brock Adams until authorities have charged him. He has rights as well. The main point is to treat both parties with respect and give a voice to the voiceless.

In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.

Kant came up with the Categorical Imperative (CI), a theory of universal moral law which he

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

     Kant describes the categorical imperative as “expressed by an ought and thereby indicate the relation of an objective law of reason to a will that is not necessarily determined by this law because of its subjective constitution.” In other words, a categorical impetrative is a command of morality that applies everywhere at all times no matter what, without exception. Kant describes two forms of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical.

Initially while reading this scenario my opinion is that yes, it was ethical. It seems that the two options are either the pedestrian gets hit by a car and surely dies, or I risk saving his life by moving him away from the cars. I would much rather that be the result than watching as cars drive by and kill the poor pedestrian. Because I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I had not helped the pedestrian, I would say that this was an ethical act. From what I understand, Kantian ethics agrees in specific respects.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

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

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

1. Kant’s categorical imperative means that you should do the same thing in all situations regardless of our wants and needs. You would act a certain way only because it is your duty and not for selfish reasons. One example is, if a person had no money and was starving and they decided to steal food because it was their only way to stay alive. The first part of the categorical imperative would be if it was a universal law.

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

Under the deontological perspective, Kant created the idea of the categorical imperative. This is a law that every human has a duty to submit. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states, “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant believed that all moral duties can be reasoned from this formulation. The categorical imperative implies that in deciding what is morally wrong or permissible, one has to be sure that everyone in this situation would act the same way. The actions must be universal. In regards to abortion, Kant would ask if every woman would have an abortion if she was pregnant. If the answer is yes, then it is seen as morally permissible. If the answer

Kant’s Categorical Imperative tells you to do something regardless of what you want. It applies to all rational beings. The Categorical Imperative has four duties, duty to self, duty to others, duty to strict, and duty to broad. There are two formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The first Formulation of the Categorical Imperative known as the Universal Law Formulation says to act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

An imperative is the linguistic form of a ‘command of reason’. In section II of the Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, German philosopher Immanuel Kant writes, “the conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative.” It is a rule telling us what we ought to do. He distinguishes between two types of imperatives: hypothetical and categorical. Kant says, “if now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical." A hypothetical imperative commands actions that are instrumentally good. A categorical imperative commands action that is good and an end just by itself. Hence, the feature that differentiates categorical from hypothetical imperative is that a categorical imperative commands a certain course of conduct independently of any other purposes, goals, or ends the agent has. Kant continues,