Kant's Golden Rule

The strengths and contributions in Kant’s theory include: 1) he marks a distinction between duty and inclination to make clear that morality is more than personal preference, 2) counters the “utilitarian presumption that the punishment of the innocent can be justified if the majority benefit” (no discrimination), 3) gives humans intrinsic worth as the rational high point of creation. The distinction between moral and inclination is that moral actions have to be nether self contradictory and universal. An example of duty is the prima face duties, such as fidelity, gratitude, and justice, proposed by W.D. Ross. One noteworthy strength of Kant’s theory is that it is good for both believers and non-believers of God and it opposes human lives as a means to the end. A morally good man needs to have good will and fulfils his duty. Kant’s ethical theory is based on duty as we ought to act morally as to do our duty- to obey the moral law. There is simply no room for feelings, inclination, love or occasion when related to moral decisions. Kant’s emphasis on our duty is similar and can be treated as compatible with the Ten Commandments in Christianity as its believers’ moral duty is to obey the Ten Commandments. Kant’s theory of ethics rejects utilitarianism, the “doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority,” which grants more fairness towards the

Kant also argued that the main idea of categorical imperative could be stated in another way, act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as simple means. This was intended as a replacement for the Christian command to love thy neighbor. To treat an individual as an end for Kant meant keeping in mind that they had a life of their own where they were seeking happiness and fulfillment and also, deserved honesty and fair treatment. The categorical imperative, Kant argued, is a logical self-speaking method. It is what man-kind truly believes when thinking sensibly, and what personal intelligence

“We should act only in ways that would be acceptable if everyone acted that way”

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

— It is Christianity To Do Good always — even to those who do evil to us. It is Christianity to love our neighbour as ourself, and to do to all men as we would have them Do to us. It is Christianity to be gentle, merciful, and forgiving, and to keep those qualities quiet in our own hearts, and never make a boast of them, or of our prayers or of our love of God, but always to shew that we love Him by humbly trying to do right in everything. If we do this, and remember the life and lessons of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and try to act up to them, we may confidently hope that God will forgive us our sins and mistakes, and enable us to live and die in Peace. [The Life of Our Lord, Ch. 11, p. 474 of The Everyman

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.

Kant’s stance leaned more towards understanding morality. He stated that you cannot go to religion for morality, due to it being the death of morality itself. Moreover, Kant sheds light on the imperfections of the Bible. He viewed the God of the Bible in a different perspective, calling him an arbitrary tyrant. A god that commands his followers to kill, to sacrifice, and one that damns people to hellfire. These statements by Kant led people to think that religion altogether must be eliminated and people should focus more on reason rather than revelation.

Kant believed achieving the intended end-result of the actions is often out of our control; therefore, the morality of our actions does not depend on the outcome or consequences. He believed the will behind the actions is the only thing that can be controlled (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.) Therefore, the consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant.

First, I would like to address the teachings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is known for his studies of deontology, or duty ethics, which is “an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (virtue ethics).” (Mastin) Kant specializes in many ideas, but the ideas I will focus on are: the will, good will, the categorical imperative, and the principle of humanity.

In “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason” Emmanuel Kant expresses his philosophical views on morality and religion. Kant believed that people tend to stray away from the morally just path and give in to evil temptations, often putting our own personal interests and gains first. Because of humanity's natural tendendencies to give in to sin, Kant believes that human beings are morally evil by nature. However he does find a solution to the problem of evil and sin by reinterpreting Christianity as a whole, and the role of Jesus Christ, who Kant believed was a model of true moral behaviour. For Kant, the battle between good and evil is a clash between moral ideals and immoral motives.

Premature birth; as characterized by Merriam-Webster word reference may be, "the end of a pregnancy after, joined by, bringing about, or nearly taken after by the passing of the incipient organism or hatchling. This is the meaning of fetus removal of which I will survey its moral status. After Roe versus Swim, the Supreme Court at the same time chose that ladies have the privilege of security under the fourteenth amendment; making it adequate to prematurely end a pregnancy inside the primary trimester (Vaughn 119). The fundamental contention on fetus removal is truly a civil argument on human life, and whether it has an incentive from the snapshot of origination. Every single human life is made out of inborn esteem, and has the privilege to

According to Kant, an action can only be morally right when it is motivated by duty alone, as opposed to being motivated by duty and emotion combined or just pure emotion (Kant, Groundwork, 397). In order to defend this statement, I will begin with explaining Kant’s view of morality and what kind of judgments we make in order to discover what morality is and how it relates to the moral law. I will then proceed to explain how Kant defines duty and how it relates to having a good will. Finally, I will explain what exactly the moral law commands and tie it back in to why morally correct actions are purely motivated by duty.

Again, the reading from Kant proves difficult to read. However, the part discussing examples of duties I found to be quite interesting. In relation to the last example when it mentions that all human beings should help others in need, I came to question if people actually carry out this duty throughout all aspects of their life? I also questioned when people do assist others in need, if they actively think and register their actions as a duty since as human beings we have a moral responsibility to help others.

The physician should be honest and open before the patient give consent to have a cerclage and any treatment afterward. The physicians should be considerate of the patient's feeling, therefore he/she should be as sensitive and supportive as possible. The patient should be provide the information in order to make the right decision. Obviously there are reasons to question the moral value in this case since lying and deception can occur. But it should not be the decision-making in this case. Of course, honest is the fundamental ethic in this case (Drane, 2015).

In my last project I talked about the urgent issue of bringing in CBD only medical marijuana items across state lines into Georgia. The dilemma was that the families and patients who urgently needed these products were subject to arrest because the products they obtained were brought over Alabama and neighboring states who haven’t passed the laws yet. This ties in with morals because the illegality of bringing in a harmless product to Georgia to treat little kids with seizures and much more is absurd and subject to ethical debate in my opinion. My own view is that it should not be illegal to transport CBD products over state lines if it is for the benefit and well-being of people with severe illness. Immanuel Kant and James Mill’s theories of the categorical imperative and utilitarianism each can be applied to this ethical debate in varying ways.