Living Morally Is Important And Essential To Enacting Moral

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.

Wolf’s argument against the moral saint ideal has a critical flaw, and that is her objection’s conclusion. Wolf’s conclusion states that a moral saint does not live the good life, however, the “good life” does not have any universally agreed upon definition that needs to be met in order to be true.

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

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

Susan Wolf believes that the definition of morality has to do with one committing selfless acts for others while remaining non-offensive, unable to be cynical, or unable to be humorous. Moral saints do not fulfill their dreams, or goals that they set for themselves and only for themselves, because they are too busy helping others or would rather selflessly benefit others. For example, If a moral saint wanted to be a good cook, Susan Wolf believes that they wouldn’t fulfill this dream unless it was for a cause, per say, cooking for the orphanage, or the soup

According to Wolf, a moral saint is essentially someone “whose every action is as good as possible, a person, that is, who is as morally worthy as can be’. In order to reach moral perfection, she argues, their lives are committed to “ improving the welfare of others or of society as a whole’. Wolf established the image of two types of saint, the Loving Sait and the Rational Saint. The Loving Saint, supposedly established on the traits of the utilitarian ideas, devotes their ‘own happiness in the happiness of others, and so he would devote himself to others gladly, with a whole and open heart’. The Rational Saint on the other hand, has the same ingredients to happiness as most of us, finds pleasure in material goods, but out of duty, sacrifices personal interest for the interest of others.

In her critical analysis of ‘Moral Saints’, Susan Wolf examines the concept of a moral saint in order to understand what exactly a moral saint would be like and why such an agent would be an unattractive individual. More so, she raises questions about the significance of this contradictory figure for moral philosophy. Looking first at the idea of moral sainthood from the ethics of common sense, Susan Wolf then considers what relations these have to the conclusions that can be drawn from both Utilitarian and Kantian moral theories. Having found these relations, Susan Wolf then speculates on the implications of these considerations for moral philosophy (Wolf, 1982, 419-420). As part of my essay, I aim to explore Susan Wolf’s argument of the ‘undesirable and unattractive’ life of a moral saint, and why she speculates such a view. Looking first at the distinguishing figures of the Loving Saint and the Rational Saint to which she bases her underlying characteristics on, I then look into Susan Wolf’s arguments in relation to Utilitarian and Kantian theories and how she speculates their undesirable notions that lead to the idea of moral sainthood. Having explored these speculations, I them aim to conclude on how Susan Wolf’s argument of the ‘unattractive’ moral saint is misunderstood, as she primarily bases her argument based on the idea of moral judgement.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

*Never treat people simply as means to an end but always at the same time as ends in themselves

According to Kant, moral questions are tied to the “maxims” of one’s own action. One must be able to convince others that his action is good and it is in the general interest of all. The “maxims” that are good to an individual must be will that it is in the general interest of all and therefore must be accepted as a “general law.” This “maxim” can be judged both from the ethical and moral point of view. However, Habermas’s view suggests that in order for a “maxim” to be called a norm, everyone must be potentially affected by it. Only then can it command in the equal interest of all and therefore must be considered as morally binding. The moral commands are expressed as an “ought.” In moral statement the question “what should I do” is transformed