Kant's Categorical Imperative Research Paper

I will not use a person 's information for my own profit without his consent. (1) According to Kant’s first categorical imperative, the formula of the universal law, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Korsgaard) (2) Kant stated that people should act from the maxim or their own personal rule. (3) Therefore, under the rule, using a person’s information for profit without his consent is an irrational action, so it is unethical. (4) According to Kant’s second categorical imperative, the formula of the end in itself, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end”. (Birsch 6) (5) Kant states that all people are autonomous and it is irrational and wrong if someone use a person as a tool to accomplish his goal. (6) A person is not a lifeless tool and should not be used without his consent, ever and everyone must be free to choose assist other person not. Therefore, under the Kant’s first and second categorical imperative, it is unethical to use a person’s information for profit without his consent.

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

In a simplistic sense Utilitarianism, originally established by Jeremy Bentham, is the ethical and teleological theory which maintains it is the total consequences of an action which determines its rightness or wrongness; that is, it is not just my happiness which should be taken into account but the happiness of everyone concerned. However, although this is the classical approach to Utilitarianism, this theory as be interpreted in numerous ways- in this essay I will focus on three (Act, rule and preference utilitarianism). Another approach to moral philosophy was put forward by Immanuel Kant, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should govern our actions, as consequences are beyond our control. As a Deontologist Kant faces the same problems

Kant’s categorical imperative is a natural conclusion of reason when searching for a moral guideline that does not depend on previous expense but reason alone. The categorical imperative can be explained in many different ways. Kant offers five formulations in his work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. The formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative can be considered a test. If your maxim passes the test then your actions under that maxim will be good. The formulations that Kant offers, they are not different rules in themselves, but different ways of stating the same thing. It is important to note that these formulations apply only to your maxim, or what you intend to do. The categorical imperative is based off of the assumption

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.

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

     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.

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

Kant's Categorical Imperative determines the right action to be the one that is capable of becoming a universal law. In this regard, Kant argues that when decisions are made on the basis of human rights and duties, they fit the definition of being ethical because if everyone follows the same action, the world becomes a better place. To apply this test, one should answer the question of "what kind of a world would it be if everyone behaved this way?"

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

Through the rapid development of technology, the world has become increasingly interconnected. This newly globalized world has created interdependent relationships between nations that requires the world to reevaluate their stance on human ethics. There are three organized systems of ethical ideals that aid humans in understanding what humans could or should be subjected to on a global platform. The first system, realism, believes that the only type of realistic ethics is one that serves human’s self-interest. In this case, it is the duty of people within the state to insure their own people’s safety above all others. Pluralism, the second system, values the diversity in culture and believes in its preservation. Specifically, they feel it is

Kant’s new foundation of modern science forever changed the philosophical world. He recognized defects in both the rationalists’ and the empiricists’ traditions. These two terms, rationalist and empiricist, are the two ideas that make up Epistemology. Epistemology in itself is the idea of what knowledge can be and it deals with what knowledge is and how we deal with it. Rationalism is the concept of ideas that we naturally have and deduction, this is A Priori. Empiricism is the concept in induction, sense perception and no innate ideas, which is A Posteriori. These two ideas were so different they were thought to be polar opposites. Both sides had many influential philosophers

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he believes that the rightness of an action depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, actions should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the action is right or wrong – period. Kant introduced the Categorical Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three formulations. The first formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that one should “always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity”; an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be

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

According to Kant, the Categorical Imperative is the supreme law of morality by which a particular rule that an individual takes as a maxim must be accepted by all rational beings. This universal acceptance is what judges an action to be always good, provided that the agent’s impartiality and independence are maintained over self interest. Therefore, the Categorical Imperative is the only valid criterion by which to decide whether an action is permissible. It is an unconditional and absolute obligation (duty), which even desire (inclination) cannot override. Duty derives from reason, which only humans possess, and thus they are the only beings capable of judging right from wrong. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is a pure a priori form, that is, one that is based on theoretical as opposed to empirical deduction. It is a rational, voluntary choice derived from finality, instead of causality, where interests are put aside and moral duty is enforced.