Kant's Responsibilities

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

No country in this globe can escape from wealth inequality. Never and ever. Even, America – The land of opportunity and the first economy of the world. While the nation is striving towards achieving its dream, it is faced with the problem of wealth gap among the low, middle, and upper classes of the society. Wealth inequality is a phenomenon or a social event of the difference in money and other assets which individuals can accumulate. For some people, no more land of opportunity and the existing wealth gap is a result of unequal opportunity. However, I and others argue the nation is still a land of opportunity, but with some challenges to overcome. Furthermore, I and some firmly believe that the wealthiest people at the top are the achievers

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.

An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.

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

Looking at this movie from Kant's viewpoint, We can say Campbell is morally wrong, by allowing himself to become a spy, he betray his duty for his country. Honesty if I remember is one of the categorical imperatives which needs to be followed, at situations. By being a spy, Campbell committed a dishonest act to his country to which he has a duty to protect. It must be noted that Campbell was indifferent to the views of the Nazis and the destruction and oppression of lives that was causing. Of course if we look at it in a different light he could have agreed to become a spy since he shared the plight of the subjugation of the Jews, I think Kant would have viewed his situation as to have no moral value. As Ackrill out it "His being a spy is also

According to my humble reading, Kant is considered the hardest to read, grasp and understand among the philosophers that we came across studying ethics. According to Kant, nothing could be called good without qualification except a good will. And the good will is the desire or the tendency to do your duty because it is your duty, not anything else. Thus, nothing can be gained out of an action. And only this motivation that gives moral worth to do an action; and only that shows you are a good moral person because when a person does his act based on doing just his duty, that action would pass the categorical imperative test (doing act is based on doing the duty (period) actually, not because passing the categorical imperative test for itself) (Kant, the Good Will). Also, it shows you are a good person if you have a good will and vice versa. Only the good will virtue is the virtue that had been accepted by Kant and not anything else. Because you might be courageous or intelligent but that does not mean you would be good moral man because you might be criminal or thief unless if you enhance your courage or intelligence with a good will. Even happiness, must have good will. For a broad example about good will, you do not cheat in exam because you do not cheat not because the professor is present at the room, or you don not steal from the grocery store because you do

Now the question then becomes what determines if an action was done out of goodwill? For Kant the prime focus on what determines morality came from the concept of duty. An action done from duty contributes its moral worth, not from the end or result of such action, but out of the intent from which it came; “duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence, or respect from moral law” without any regard or consequences (Rahman, 1993, p. 86). The universal moral law dictates duty in that we all have a duty to follow moral law through one’s actions. The Formula of Universal Moral Law requires that having moral worth must meet the requirements of self-legislation in that rational human beings through reason produce a law unto itself

“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.

Kant says that moral values are ‘good without qualification.’ This assertion and similar remarks of Plato can be understood in terms of a return to moral data themselves in the following ways: 1. Moral values are objectively good and not relative to our judgments; 2. Moral goodness is intrinsic goodness grounded in the nature of acts and independent of our subjective satisfaction; 3. Moral goodness expresses in an essentially new and higher sense of the idea of value as such; 4. Moral Goodness cannot be abused like intellectual, aesthetic, temperamental and other values; 5. Moral values are good in that they never must be sacrificed for any other value, because they are incomparably higher and should absolutely and ‘first’ be sought for;

2. Define and describe Kantian Duty Ethics, with reference to the Principle of Universalizability and the Principle of Humanity. Do you find this theory plausible? Why or why not?

First of all, Kant 's ethics is called formalism since it concentrates on the shape or structure of an ethical judgment (the way that every ethical mandate have the frame "you should do X"). The basic point of Kant 's moral hypothesis is to decide how summon can be an ethical order with an especially committing or obligating character.

In order to evaluate whether one’s actions are moral, we use many moral dilemmas. One of them is Kant’s categorical imperative. This essay presents Kant’s project of categorical imperative. Then, I will explain that rulers should appeal to Kant’s categorical imperative when making foreign policy decision. In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the principles of categorical imperative which are

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)