Essay On the Obligation to Keep One’s Promises

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

One of Kant’s more controversial cases in which he stuck to the idea that lying would be wrong is that of the murderer at the door. If some murderer set on killing your roommate were to come to your door and ask

Throughout the world, the United States is infamous for its guaranteed freedom to its citizens. People travel from all around many different parts of the world to get a taste of the lifestyle and opportunity the United States citizen’s are offered everyday. This nation thrives on preserving our personal freedoms, property, and liberty; moreover, it is the nation’s promise to its citizens. These rights are binded in our coveted Bill of Rights and the Constitution, a document for the people by the people. Many people can find their own personal definition of what they believe to be the American Promise; however, growing up I have always believed and had been taught that the American Promise was the opportunity to live

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.

Stephen L. Carter links integrity and honesty. There are three constraints discussed in this essay. First, integrity does require a degree of moral reflectiveness. Second, Integrity may cause conflict that is must be resolved. It does not necessarily produce or protect interpersonal harmony. Third, a person who has integrity can be trusted. It does not avoid the restructuring of social structures and associations, because it leaves the matter to exercise of interpersonal authority.

     .Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is. Kant described two types of common commands given by reason: the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given course of action to reach a specific end; and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the basis of morality and was stated by Kant in these words: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law." Therefore, before proceeding to act, you must decide what rule you would be following if you were to act, whether you are willing for that rule to be followed by everyone everywhere. If you are willing to universalize the act, it must be

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

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.

It is commendable that he never backed down from the belief that lying is never acceptable, even to prevent a murder. He defended himself by stating moral actions are not measured by their consequences and if a person lied to a murderer, he or she is now denying the murderer the freedom to rationalize his own actions and perhaps decide not to kill his intended victim. Kant feels that by lying to the murderer the murderer becomes just a means to an end instead of being treated like an end as well. He has essentially been stripped of free will in that situation which goes against everything Kant believes to be

Kant gives an example for why lying is not a right action. He states that there is a man who needs money even though he knows he will not be able to pay it back, his maxim is “’I will borrow money and promise to pay it back, though I know that this will never be done’” (Kant 534). Kant explains that this maxim would not work as a universal law because every banker would not believe someone who says they are going to pay money back, therefore would never give out any loads. He goes on to explain how people should treat each other. He argues that it is not acceptable to treat someone as “a merely as a means but “at the same time as an ends” (Kant 536). He says that to treat someone as a merely a means is to treat them merely as a machine in ones plan and involving them without their ability to consent. He argued that people needed to be treated as an ends meaning that people needed to be able to enter agreements of their own free will and without manipulation (Kant 537). Kant believed that treating people merely as a means was without good will and therefore could never produce a right action.

Emmanuel Kant has three propositions of morality. One of the propositions is that in order to have moral worth, an action must be from a moral duty. The second proposition is that “action whether the action is in accord with duty has been done from duty or from some selfish purpose is easy”(Cahn 76). The third proposition is that “action accord with duty and the subject has in addition an immediate inclination to do the action”(Cahn 76). Each one of the propositions has a different distinct and they are connected to morality. There are several actions that can be done out of duty, while others can be done out of desire. Each one of these two are used to determine if it’s done in a moral way. Kant gives two examples, one example is about a self-interested shopkeeper and the other is a reluctant benefactor. In the self-interested shop keeper, the dealer is focused on having fixed prices for everyone. He needs the customers to keep coming

First, he states that it is okay to lie so you can save yourself from embarrassment.(516) Secondly he claims that consistently telling the truth has it’s advantage in trust.(516) To this he says there are exceptions to this rule. Namely that if withholding information from someone results in saving them from evil occurring to them.(516) Even with these exceptions, he says that we have to recognize that the lie may be breaking down trust so we can truly weight the cost and the benefit of both.(516)

In the expert it says, “Even worse, it harms the liar himself, by destroying his human dignity and making him more worthless even than a small thing. Even though lying can protect someone from serious harm, it could also damage someone's dignity. Lying could also affect the way people look at you. It also says, “Kant defines a lie as “an intentional untruthful declaration to another person”and dismisses the idea that we owe the duty of speaking the truth only to those who have a right to the truth.” Lying may also affect the way people look at

This is because silence is not the truth, so by remaining quiet, that person is not telling the truth. A more recognizable form of lying is outright lying, such as when a student claims to be working hard on her philosophy paper when she has in fact been partying at Myrtle Beach for the last two days. Deception is yet another form of lying, because by tricking another person into believing something false, one is withholding the truth from that person. By withholding the truth, the truth is not being told, so the deceiver must be a liar. Regardless of the form in which a lie is being presented, all lies have one thing in common. By giving others false thoughts or perceptions of an event, lies can have a strong influence on our free thinking. Therefore, they are all violations of human reason, something that many people strongly respect. As we will see shortly, the ability to reason is also considered valuable to both Mill and Kant, since it underlies both of their moral theories.

Kant’s choice of exemplification scenarios further asserts that no action that is done from inclination have any moral worth and that only the actions from duty have moral worth. According to Kant, a good or right course of action is not necessarily that which is inscribed in the society’s code of ethical reference but it is that which one undertakes since they feel it is their duty or obligation to perform it (Stratton-Lake, 322). Doing the right thing does nothave limitations or a comparison index but is rather based on one's rationale and free will. The duty to do the right thing manifests itself as an internal urge towards fulfilling a certain quest. That quest is makes one have the free will to perform or not perform a certain deed without regarding the consequences that would have on their life and society. Fossee notes that Kant’s argument is therefore shaped in a way that any conflict between duties is nullified or not considered in the analyses (3). That is made possible from Kant’s earlier classification of needs into perfect and imperfect needs. The superiority of the perfect needs means that the rationale of a person is guided to ensure that categorical imperatives take precedence and acts as a determinate factor for the morality of an action.