Kant's Groundwork Of The Metaphysics Of Moral And John Stuart Mill Analysis

For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important. Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and

In her paper, The right to lie: Kant on dealing with evil, Christine Korsgaard offers an example in which lying is morally permissible under one formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative yet not another. From this Korsgaard concludes that Kant’s formulations of Universal Law and of Humanity as an End in Itself are not equivalent, and that one is more strict than the other. In this paper I will present Korsgaard's example and then use her interpretation of the Formulation of Universal Law to evaluate what it would prescribe as the correct responses to three additional cases.

Kant believed that the one unconditional good thing is good will (Fincke, 2009). In other words, any other candidate for 'good ' – such as courage or happiness – can be turned evil through immoral intentions. For example, it takes courage to stand up for someone getting bullied in the park, however, it also takes courage to bully someone in the park. As you can see, courage without good will, or good intentions, can be the downfall of another person. An argument that is well known to be made by Kant goes as follows; a shoe keeper might do what is

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals serves the purpose of founding moral theory from moral judgment and examining whether there is such thing as a ‘moral law’ that is absolute and universal. In chapter three of his work, he discusses the relationship between free will and the moral law and claims “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same.” He stands firm in his belief that moral law is what guides a will that is free from empirical desires. To be guided by moral laws it would require men to be ideal rational agents.

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant seeks to develop a clear understanding of moral principles. Qualities of character and fortune can be exercised for either good or bad purposes, and only the good will is naturally and inherently good. Humans are at once rational and natural beings; our reason and natural characteristics are distinct from each other. Kant suggests that we must choose either to follow our rational or natural capacities. Although man’s highest purpose may seem to be self-preservation and happiness, as rational beings our highest purpose is to develop this good will. Our instinct leads us to the pursuit happiness and self-preservation, but the will developed by our reason would be good in itself and

7. Bluffing can be ethical, depending on the circumstances and how it is employed. In fact, Beatty Samuelson, in Essentials of Business Law, points out the “Kantian evasion or plater”, which serves as the basis for deceiving someone in an ethical way. She describes it as “a truthful statement that is nonetheless misleading” (36). For instance, Kant’s example of a murderer coming to our door -asking for someone who is in our own home and who he wants to kill – illustrates an instance when answering questions fully could lead to terrible consequences (36). In that case, Samuelson argues, telling the truth and pointing the killer to the victim would be very costly, so it is better to employ Kant’s evasion principle and reply with a truthful, but misleading statement.

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

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

In the excerpt Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant presents a profound argument that how right an action is, is determined by intention of the principle that is being acted on. He believes that the outcome of an action is irrelevant because it is out of our control, it doesn’t matter if what we genuinely intended is accomplished. But, we can control the will behind the action. He explains, “The good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes or because of its adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of its willing, i.e. it is good of itself” (124). Kant uses an example of two shopkeepers that treat their customers in the same way, but are in fact motivated very differently. The first shopkeeper gives the correct change to the customer, but for selfish purposes. He is scared of getting caught for trying to cheat an inexperienced customer like a child. Plus, obtaining a good reputation of being an honest shopkeeper improves his business. The second shopkeeper gives honest change to the customer simply because he is an honest man, and it is morally right. Even though both shopkeepers did the

In Kant’s Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals, his first proposition states that an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty. The second proposition is that an action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based. Therefore, it wouldn’t matter if the intent failed or backfired, as the principle was good. Will is between principle a priori and incentive a posteriori, and since Kant has stripped the will of its incentives, the goodness of an act must necessarily be in the principle. The third proposition, is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law. Since an action in accordance from duty must be stripped of all desires, then what is left is the purely objective,

There are always times in which an individual will find herself in a situation in which she has to make the morally right decision. The right decision is not always the easiest one. This is the case for Kelly’s current situation with her ill father who does not have much time left. Two options lie in front of her. She could choose to lie to her father to prevent any form of suffering before he passes away or she could choose to tell her father the truth though it may bring him distress before he passes away. A Kantian believes that Kelly should reveal the truth to her father no matter the distress it might bring him before his life comes to an end. On the other hand, a Millian believes that Kelly should lie to her father to prevent any suffering that may be brought upon him should he

Immanuel Kant, a philosopher who has strong opinions against lying has puzzled many critical thinkers in philosophy. Kant creates a troubling situation on where a murderer is at the door asking whether or not the victim, he or she is looking for is hiding and whether are not one should lie or tell the truth about the victim’s current hiding spot. An individual has a sense of inclination to do what is right, however Kant is acknowledging that if one does testify where the victim is then one is surely respecting the murderers intentions. Furthermore, the murderer’s devious actions are now placed upon the witness. In addition to this example, a Nazi is at the door wanting to know if one has seen or is captivating any Jewish individuals. According

Kant’s supreme principle of morality is also based on reason. According to him, acting on principle signifies that we should do something simply because it is the right thing to do. In addition, he argues that the morality of an act depends on a person’s intentions. A moral act is one done for the right reasons, even if it has bad consequences or it is not in the agent’s best interest. In other words, the highest function of reason is to establish good will, not happiness (Kant, P.96). In his view of morality, self-interest and duty come into conflict since performing one’s duty does not necessarily make someone or others happy. In fact, being ethical often hurts. Overall, happiness plays almost no role in Kant’s morality. In his opinion, a good will is not good because it tries to promote some good end. Firstly, a good will is always good, good unconditionally, and never in any way bad. Secondly, all other goods, for instance, gifts of nature or fortune, are good only conditionally and are worthless or even bad when the relevant conditions are not satisfied. Lastly, the goodness of any conditioned good depends on it being combined with a good will. This concept of a will estimable in itself and good without regard to any further end is captured in Kant’s first proposition: Only an act done from duty has moral worth (Kant, P.98). Having a good will is the condition to be satisfied for any other good

If a person is hiding several Jews in his/her home at the time of World War II and Nazis knock on the door and asks if he/she is sheltering Jews. In this situation, the government officials are the Nazis and if one follows Kantian ethics, he/she is obligated to tell the truth which would result in the death of several Jews.