Kantian Moral Theory : Kant 's Philosophy

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.

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

Media, defined as a mean of mass communication that reaches and influences the general audience. When the media is combined with moral theories, known as the guides for humans to figure out what actions are either right or wrong, it creates a balance in our entertainment about what is ethical or not to display on society. By having various Moral Theories and none of them being one 100 percent perfect, it causes humans to create their own satisfactory moral theory. My own satisfactory moral theory, in essence, is a combination of being able to take into consideration my personal relationships while still making an impact in my community, society and the world. Having morals in the media is what allows us to know when one may cross the line.

Basically, lying is not a good thing to do, but it do not always need to be like that. Judging on something that right or wrong should base on that it is benefit anybody or bother anyone or not. Some people know as “White lie” and “Black lie”. We can state that lying would be the right thing, in case that it benefits to somebody and not bothers others at all. But if not, it can be consider as it is wrong.

Lying is sometimes justified. Some may feel that lying is never acceptable because it is morally wrong, however, I believe lying is acceptable when it can be used to protect others. Lying can cause harm to people and hurt them. In “Rejecting All Lies” by Sissela Bok, Immanuel Kant states that lying always harms mankind individually.

Before Kant wrote this book, he observed fallacies in society such as thinking about the consequences of an action, rather than if the action itself is good. Other fallacies include that humans do not typically think about how a decision will impact their fellow humans. Kant noted these deficiencies in society and as a result hypothesized the universal categorical imperative stating one “ought never to act in such a way that [one] couldn’t also will that maxim on which [one] should be a universal law” (Kant 11). Kant offered this categorical imperative to answer most questions of morality simply by asking oneself, “Would I be content for my maxim…to hold as a universal law, for myself as well as for others” (Kant 12). The reason Kant’s universal imperative is foremost to other ethical theories is because if we were to conceptualize our decision on a grand scale using Kant’s universal imperative, we would un-biasedly conclude that either our decision would deteriorate society or that our decision would be of benefit to society. For example, in reference to the act of lying, Kant explains that a person “could will the lie but not a universal law to life; for such a law would result in there being no promises at all” (Kant 12). Similarly, if I promised a person to vouch for them and tell the truth at a court hearing and instead I recall the situation inaccurately for my own gain or for certain benefits, I am contributing to the injustice of the World. In contrast, if I were to get on the stand and ask myself “what would happen if no one got on the witness stand and told the accurate story,” I would have substantiated that a World with no truth is a World filled with criminals who do not receive justice. Kant’s universal categorical imperative is applicable to the vast majority of moral questions, making it the

Kant informs us that as humans it is our formal duty to be truthful when speaking, even though it may be a disadvantage to him or others. A wrong would be committed upon humanity for justifying a lie. To Kant, a lie will always hurt an individual and lies always bring consequences which can be devastating. And adds that truthfulness is the foundation that grounds everyone else and no exceptions should be made. If an exception is made, then that certain human should be labeled as a liar since said human thinks they are above the rule of truth that binds everyone

Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that

In conclusion, everyone has different view on lies, I believe that there are only a few situations in which telling a lie is okay, and that every lie has an

Lying is ok because it maintains your image.In paragraph nine it says that moral philosopher would disagree that all lies are bad but Randy Cohen says i'm a big fan of lying.Lying is not always justified it is a moral duty we lie without even thinking about lying.We lie to maintain our image so people won’t think bad of us or be hating because if we always say the truth people might get

Keep this method in mind, it is important to elucidate here Kant’s himself methodological strategy for structuring the fundamental principle. In fact, Kant purports a complex formulation in the different methods. The task of this structure has been outlined, by Kant himself, in term of establishing the principle of morality throughout the Groundwork. In the first two sections of Groundwork, Kant proceeds his argument analytically, which means in Wood’s definition “moving from what is more evident to us toward the first principle” . From the first section, namely the common rational moral cognition, Kant arrives the first and most provisional formulation of the law, namely the formula of universal law (FUL). Whereas the Second Section is proceeding more philosophically from an

Kant really focuses his arguments regarding to moral rules that are necessary and universal, such as moral law that would hold up to all rational beings. In Kantian ethics, Kant offers two different explanations of moral law, the formula of the universal law of nature and the formula of humanity as an end in itself. In this paper, I am going to focus on explaining, reconstruct, and analyze on the first topic which is the formula of the universal law of nature regarding to the lying promise.

Do you think there is a morally significant difference between lying and deception? Explain. While Kant forbids lying, would he condone deception? In other words, would Kant support something like the following situation: the victim comes to cross-roads.  She lays a false trail leading to the left, dropping her handkerchief and leaving footprints in the mud. Then she carefully goes on the right-hand road, ensuring no footprints are visible for a while, hoping that the murderer will see the false trail, come to believe that she went left, and thus permit her to escape. (Rely on the CI of Universality & Respect for your answer.)

Kant tries to offer a deontological position that is public or available to all to explain morality. The thing he relied on was Reason. Kant used reason to generate his intrinsically right rule. He relied on two ways to explain his moral system. These are: relying on a rational test to construct moral rules and respecting the moral agent. Kant claims that reason is the universal foundation for all morality and argues that morality must be based on apriori truth (truth based on reason) and not on empirical or a posterior truth. This is because, if morality is not apriori, then it won’t be universal, therefore it would be subjected to change.