Kantianism And Altruism

Firefighters risk their lives in order to protect the public from fire and many other dangers. This seems like a noble selfless career but it cannot be considered truly altruistic because they are being paid for their services through monetary gain, recognition from the people they serve and many other benefits. Since they are receiving something in return it cannot be considered a truly altruistic action. If one would take a minute to think if they did not get paid to do what they do, would they continue to serve the people, risking their lives for absolutely nothing in return? The same pattern can be seen in many other “altruistic” behaviors. Parents feel like they are behaving in a selfless manner when they work and spend a huge chunk of their wages to send their children to receive an education instead of getting one themselves. While yes, this is noble of them to want their children to live a better quality of life than they did, the parents are still receiving the benefit of their own offspring being educated and therefore increasing their kids’ chances of prospering. The truly altruistic action would be to spend their lives paying for the education of kids they have never met, which have no connection to them

Why should students help pick up fellow classmate's books that he or she dropped? Why should people give to the homeless? Why should humans become organ donors? Altruism is defined as a person's ability to go out of their way to enhance the welfare of someone else without anything in return. But it's not the "what" of altruism that is intriguing, it's the "why" that is truly fascinating. Scientist and researches may never pinpoint what makes humans exhibit altruistic behavior, but there is one thing that scientist and researches are sure about. Altruism plays an important role in running society, and the world can use more of it.

A cause of income inequality could be the jobs that people have. “In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly… (Income Inequality, para 1).” There have been no signs of income inequality changing for the lower classes, or getting better, therefore, it has become a very concerned issue upon Americans. “America’s top ten percent now average at least nine times as much income as the bottom 90 percent (Income Inequality, para 2).” Many people who have a big dream have jobs that pay minimum wage, which makes it hard. With the rich getting richer, it makes it hard for the lower classes to get a shot at being at the top with them. This also makes it hard to close the gap between the three classes.

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

In many instances, people will not have the motivation or incentive to benefit a charity unless they get something out of it. Most people believe this to be a selfish act. Why can't someone do something nice for the community and not expect anything in return? Offering incentives for charitable acts is a easy way to bribe people, but sends a morally wrong and selfish message.

Throughout the years, the gap between the poor and the rich has only increased. The wage percentage has decreased, while the productivity percentage has increased. During recent years, the wealthiest of the American population, also known as the top 20%, control over 80% of the American wealth, while the “poorest of the poor” barely control 5% of the wealth. An example of this income gap would be CEO of companies and their

On top of it all the rich seem to get richer, spending their money on bigger houses, better cars, always trying to out do each other while the middle class continues to struggle. Paul Krugman describes this very well by saying,

As capitalism is growing, more people want to make money and so more corporations are coming into the market. Corporations have all the same goal and it’s to be the most profitable. Technologies will give them good opportunities to save money. In this manner, it will create inequalities in terms of the distribution of income. Indeed, CEOs are taking more profits compared to the middle class who gets less because technology can do their jobs. Therefore, the middle class gets into debt and so some of them are obligated to have multiple works or work longer hours. Thus, we can notice that the gap between rich and poor is increasing because of corporations. Nowadays, in the United States, a lot of corporations are controlling politics with their

The trade off of a charitable act for a incentive is ethical. Giving to charity is both moral and good because it is for a good cause and benefits society. If incentives motivate people to give to the poor then they should be given. This does not undermine the fact of what charities are for. Someone that does a good act should indeed be offered a reward, greatness for

Kant’s states that the good will is “the ability to reliably know what your duty is, and a steady commitment to doing your duty for its own sake” ( 180). In other words, good will is really understanding what our moral duties are and doing what is right whether it leads to happiness or not. Is it possible for someone to do the right thing and still lack good will. This is possible because people who do the right thing just because it benefits them is not really having good will. For example, in class we have being talking about the shopkeeper who did not overcharge his customers because it was going to bring consequences to his business. His action would not be considered morally worthy or an act of good will because he did

In today’s world, many charitable acts have incentives that are sometimes used to “praise” its participants.These charitable acts can compose of simply volunteering for events that need help or donating money to an organization that needs the money. However, are these incentives really justified? Charitable acts are mainly supposed to be composed of altruistic acts people do mainly because they want to, not because they will get rewarded for them. Nevertheless, people put a particular twist in these kind-hearted acts to make them sometimes competitive, or prize bearing; therefore taking out the “selfless” meaning behind charitable acts. Is this really a good idea? Is the implacement of incentives really a requirement to have people participate

Nice post!! I also agree with Kant's view. It is difficult to separate our own benefit from the "good will". I think that there may be a few people that only act motivate exclusive by the "good will" like the saints or extremely moral good people, and leave their own benefit behind. I think that most humans will try to look for their own benefit before doing the action; they may have the good intention behind their actions but they probably will choose the one that brings the most benefits for them. I don't think Kant is wrong; however, I think that we have a though time trying to choose an action that is moral good without looking to our own benefit.

The good will is what we want to do unless something external prevents us from accomplishing it. It rests on good intentions, which are at the source of our every action. However, the circumstances we find ourselves into may disrupt our good intentions, and the results may not be what we had expected. On such terms, we should not be held accountable for the negative results, since our very first intention was to do good. I other words, the good will is good in itself, by virtue, and it is independent from any type of inclination.

“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.