Kant's Categorical Argument Essay

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

pay back money in order to meet a need of his own. He must consider

In contrast to the consequentialist focus of utilitarianism, Kant was more focused on intent and action itself. This leads into one of Kantian ethics main ideals; you mustn’t treat another human being as a means to an end. Kant’s Categorical Imperative (CI) is a deontological theory, which relied heavily on his belief that humans are all capable of reason in the same manner, on the same level (A Brief Summary of Kant 's Categorical Imperative, 2012). Kant recognized 2 kinds of moral ‘imperatives’, a hypothetical imperative (what must be done to achieve a desired result) and Categorical imperatives (how one must act irrespective of one’s end goal/desires). For Kant, all moral duties were considered to be categorical, and should apply to everyone universally. Kant believes that truthfulness is the formal duty of everyone, regardless of what disadvantage it may cause to yourself or another (Kant, 1994). He illustrates this quite well by using his categorical imperative, saying that if all people were to lie, then all contracts and laws would lose their legitimacy. Kant also went on to point out that if we were to lie, even from a place of good intention, it is impossible to control the outcome(s) and we may be responsible for whatever comes from it (Kant, 1994). However if we were to tell the truth then we have upheld our duty and as such can shoulder no blame for any consequences.

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.

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

Anselm’s interpretation of who God is that he or she is completely good,all-seeing, divine, personal and fundamental. In short, a perfect being.

In what appears to be an important section of the Critique of Pure Reason, when Kant attempts to show the natural connection between the table of judgment and the table of categories, there is a cryptic little paragraph:

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either

An American general manager of a bank, who was on his first overseas mission, refused advice by Italian local lawyers and tax counselor to file his tax in Italian style. Americans do not negotiate tax but they want to pay tax fairly but Italians do not pay fairly, it is common practice to underestimate and then negotiate.

Descartes saying of Cogito, ergo sum, means I think, therefore I am. In class, it was discussed that this meant that since one can think, it is proof that they exist. Further with this, Descartes said that he is nothing but a thinking being, and that it if you stop thinking, you stop existing. So, this thought explaining death means that you do not die, but you just have stopped thinking.

Philosopher named Immanuel Kant argues that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality or as he call it “categorical Imperative”. Categorical Imperative is, “act always and only on that maxim which you can will to be a universal law”. Maxims are nothing more than rule or principle on which you act, general schema for maxim would be when I am in circumstance in C, I will do action A. Common example of maxim would be “Whenever I am late to college I would go over red light”.

The exercise of one’s reason is what Immanuel Kant promotes in What is Enlightenment (1997) by creating two main environments: the public and the private space. The public sphere is a place to exercise the public reason where individuals are free from obligation of their occupations or vocations. Specifically, individuals are free to write or speak critically, and act freely without any restrictions. Principally, in the public space, individuals have no conditions or hierarchies who tell them to you act in a certain way, so everyone can perform independently. Nevertheless, the public sphere is not the way you act in public; it just

If, even with man’s best effort, nothing is achieved, any process of good will must be regarded as such (394). This marks a definite shift in philosophical thought; the consideration of good without any remark on the consequences of one’s actions and thoughts. Kant does not emphasize the creation of happiness as the goal of one’s choices, since happiness is a subjective marker open to corruption (396). Multiple actions can produce this result, while the same action can differ in its consequences. This uncertainty necessitates a different, more concrete definition of moral value.

All humans have some type of understanding of what good will is, as it is a reason or a determination of the proper thing to do at the right time or period. Rather than the human reaction to try and satisfy or make oneself happy, humans would be and should be more naturally inclined to make possible good will and being good which this will bring about unintentional happiness or satisfaction. Then Kant going on to explain that by using reason in a situation, humans would not be able to attain good will as reason cannot be used on a unconditional basis and that would cloud judgement.