Kant's Views on Morality

In the late 18th century, German philosopher Emmanuel Kant wrote a book titled Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant describes the common principles of morality are naturally apply in life. Arguing that rational people act based on moral for the good will of the rational whole. Kant believes that to act morally, there has to be a reason behind it. People that are rational have the capacity to act on free will, based on universal and necessary laws. Kant explains two laws of imperative; Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives. Both imperatives simplified thing that people have to do in society. The hypothetical imperative means to want something and finding different ways to achieve it. An example would be wanting to pass an exam to get

The Groundwork takes up a big question: What is the supreme principle of morality? (Michael J. Sandel, 2009). Besides this question, I am going to consider the following questions: What is the categorical imperative? The difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives. What is morality from Kant’s point of view? And of course, the main question of this essay - Will the categorical imperative apply to all kinds of moral problems?

In A Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanual Kant, unlike David Hume, aimed to establish an absolute system of morality based upon reason. Kant’s conceptions regarding what is moral and how someone should behave ethically, are often seen as contradictions to those proposed by Hume, who holds an empirical stance. As mentioned, Kant emphasizes the necessity of basing morality on a priori principles; he puts faith in the power of human rationality and believed that reason alone, not feeling, is a key to advancing human morality. An ethical system based upon reason would provide the framework for moral principles acceptable to all. Kant’s fundamental moral principle, the categorical imperative, tells one how to act regardless of what end or goal is desired, which correlates with his idea that people must be treated as ends and not as means. He also disapproves the action of lying and deems it to be morally wrong, as it corrupts one’s ability to make autonomous, rational decisions. While some may argue that Kant’s system of morality is flawed, Kant’s theories do prove to be convincing, even more so than his predecessor David Hume; Kant’s conceptions of what is moral and how someone should behave ethically are somewhat idealistic, however, his ideas should act as a model in which humans strive towards.

Kant argued that a person acts on a ‘maxim’ which he interprets as intentions. He also argues that morality is a set of guidelines that are similar to everyone. In addition to that, human beings have a will; they can make choices. From this, he forms the conclusion that only the ‘good will’ is morally good. Something is good only if the will to do it was in itself good (Lacewing, 2004).

Through a series of analogies and examples, Kant carefully depicts the moral order when it comes to groundings for metaphysics of morals. He claims that there must a ultimate principle of morality, composed purely on abstraction, that could guide us to the right action in any situation that you may run into, which he later identifies as a categorical imperative. ( 97) Describing two forms of imperatives (an obligation or command that we act in a certain way), a hypothetical and categorical imperative, he is able to lay the basic foundations of the moral actions we choose to take on the daily basis. A hypothetical imperative involves carrying out an operation in order to achieve something. On the other hand, a categorical imperative is when

Kant's description of moral action are twofold, the first being an action that is done in accordance with duty which means that it is done with the duty in mind, but may be motivated by personal inclinations or desires. The second is from duty, which is done purely with regards to the duty itself without taking into consideration one’s own desires and interests. These being the two extremes on a scale of sorts, as judging a person's actions as being either would be nigh on impossible, but for one's self, this is a scale through which one must judge and police their own actions.

Keep this method in mind, it is important to elucidate here Kant’s himself methodological strategy for structuring the fundamental principle. In fact, Kant purports a complex formulation in the different methods. The task of this structure has been outlined, by Kant himself, in term of establishing the principle of morality throughout the Groundwork. In the first two sections of Groundwork, Kant proceeds his argument analytically, which means in Wood’s definition “moving from what is more evident to us toward the first principle” . From the first section, namely the common rational moral cognition, Kant arrives the first and most provisional formulation of the law, namely the formula of universal law (FUL). Whereas the Second Section is proceeding more philosophically from an

Immanuel Kant argues in his Groundwork’s for Moral Philosophy, against the instrumentalists, who saw humans as a means to God and the world – instruments benefiting God. He innovates a new way of looking at action, the metaphysical question on how to see if an action is moral in a certain circumstance . He contends that the rules for morality must be derived from duty, the Categorical Imperative(CI ). Kant’s Catagorical Imperative can be explained by deconstructing the term: Imperative because it is a command that forces us to use our wills in moral ways, and categorical because it applies unconditionally to rational wills, the wills of humans. Kant reasons that one must act through his categorical imperative, which commands unconditional

Ever since Kant 's publication of his renowned ethical treatises, deontologists and utilitarians alike have argued over which moral theory is most coherent. Yet, in Mill 's critique of Kant, Mill sidesteps this issue, not by directly critiquing Kant 's moral theory, but rather by asserting that Kant 's moral theory is actually just a form of utilitarianism. Essentially, Kant 's universal law test is nothing more than a veiled appeal to consequences, as Mill correctly claims in his critique of Kant.

Kant believes that our moral judgment is right, just with the wrong reasons. Kant’s account of moral judgment is purely from reason. In the preface of “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Kant, Kant mentioned that “my aim here is directed

According to Kant, there is an all-encompassing principle, known as categorical imperatives, that determines what an individual’s moral duties are. Imperatives can be broken down into two categories hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are based on personal desires. Categorical imperatives are unconditional moral obligations that are not dependent on an individual’s personal desires. Categorical imperatives apply to all people and do not vary from person to person. Kant had several methods of explaining the applications of categorical imperatives. Kant believed that individuals should, "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]." Kant also argues that a person’s moral worth is dependent on the motivation of their actions and not on the positive outcomes of their actions. This is known as the Moral

Kant tries to offer a deontological position that is public or available to all to explain morality. The thing he relied on was Reason. Kant used reason to generate his intrinsically right rule. He relied on two ways to explain his moral system. These are: relying on a rational test to construct moral rules and respecting the moral agent. Kant claims that reason is the universal foundation for all morality and argues that morality must be based on apriori truth (truth based on reason) and not on empirical or a posterior truth. This is because, if morality is not apriori, then it won’t be universal, therefore it would be subjected to change.

Kant believes that a person who does something because it is the morally right thing to do is especially commendable, more than a person who does something for some sort of gain. Human beings usually act out of self-interest. Whether its good or bad, we are doing it for ourselves, for someone important or for our loved ones. Psychologically, we would think our actions are right during desperate times. However we must realize that, during times like these, we may not be making morally right decisions. Moral doings involves the willingness to

Kant argues that morality should not be based upon empirical observation, but rather morality should be based upon reason alone. By doing this, he eliminates the emotional components concerning morality causing his argument to become flawed. His theory presents a flaw for morality and therefore I will criticize his argument.

In the Groundwork, Kant will propose the existence of the categorical imperative of morality. A categorical imperative is a moral principle that must be followed unconditionally. This is the criterion to which maxims should conform. Maxim, as defined by Kant, is “the subjective principle of willing.” [4:401] Additionally, the categorical