Organized Being in Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Immanuel Kant is said by many to be one of the most influential “thinkers” in the history of Western philosophy (McCormick, n.d.), this being said, most of his theories continue to be taught and are highly respected by society. Kant was a firm believer that the morality of any action can be assessed by the motivation behind it (McCormick, n.d.). In other words, if an action is good but the intention behind the action is not good, the action itself would be considered immoral. Those who follow the utilitarian view would disagree, arguing that an action which benefits the most number of people would be considered moral regardless of the intentions behind it. Kant argues that the intention behind an action matters more than the number of people benefited. This theory of morality falls hand in hand with Kant 's concept of good will, and through examples I hope to explain to readers, in a simple way, what Kant was trying to convey.

We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are selfish, and for the wrong reasons as ‘motives of inclination.’ In the seatbelt example, we see a motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.

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.

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 Kant’s second proposition he states “an action that is done from duty doesn’t get its moral value form the purpose that’s to be achieved through it but from the maxim that is involves, giving the reason why the person acts thus.” Kant makes it clear that any action must be done for its own sake and not for the sake of any other end. The moral worth of some action is to be found in the maxim itself rather than the effects it produces. Kant says that the difference between acting from duty and acting according to duty would hold no weight. By looking only at the end of our actions we would not be able to distinguish between people who act because they reason it is their duty to do so and people who act because they desire some of the end. We could all act for self-interested reasons because we desire some outcome. Kant says that

There is two views of the form of ethics concerning towards the law. [1] Abel states teleological view is when someone is viewing the existence of the action and deems it as a form of excuse. The second view, a deontological view is the normative ethical position that judges on the morality of an action and based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules. For example, Immanuel Kant follows a form of deontological because he introduced the form of categorical imperative which states that if any actions are not universal then they are considered immoral.

P2P file-sharing: downloading illegal content such as movie, music, and etc. No matter how one rationalize their own actions, anyone could agree that stealing is consider wrong. Furthermore, our society have become habituated to P2P file sharing and the idea of distributing and downloading free content for themselves. What would Kant think about P2P file-sharers? In Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, I believe that Kant would disapprove of P2P file sharing. If P2P file-sharing became or was a Universalized Maxim, no rational being would not want to live in such a world. Persons, such as those who work in the movie and music industry, would be simply used as a Mean for one's own End, which then be at variance with Kant's fundamental

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason [2] is notoriously difficult to read and often unclear. Possibly,

To conclude, I believed a good will is built naturally, inborn but there are factors from the growing environment like family background, peer pressure that affects the good will. These may makes people become evil. On the other hand, I believed no matter there is no purpose or positive purpose behind can be considered as duty. The Kant’s idea of duty is no purpose behind because he thinks duty should not benefit to ourselves but others. Sometimes positive purposes also benefit to others instead of benefit to

This week’s reading was Immanuel Kant “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”. In this reading, he talks about the morality of people and the definition of a good being. There are multiple definitions ranges from the typical selfish acts compare to selfless ones ranging from the obvious ones of inequity to ethics responsibility. Hence, from this long complicated reading of morality, there were many questions that I had about this reading.

Kant’s ideas that the ends do not justify the me and the means should be ends in and of themselves causes mediocrity decay, and suffering. While the perpetrates just say we meant well. That is why the road to hell is pa? With good intentions. The only proper way to judge an action is by the resulting reaction. This idea that living by the laws of causes and effect is beneath human beings because it would make us no different than animals. Kant asserts that since human beings are capable of comply thoughts and moral reasoning it is incumbent upon humans to disregard ? Of nature growing the rest of the

In my essay, I’m going to be arguing Immanuel Kant’s theory that “a will is good because it is good in itself” (383). This argument, presented in his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, is one of the key ideas brought up to support his theory on morality. I believe that Kant’s argument is essentially correct – however, with every argument comes a set of flaws, and this one is no exception.

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

To be able to reach this point, Kant used the process of elimination between inclination, prudence, and duty. In his paper, Kant explains that a person cannot achieve good will if they use inclination (what you desire) because to him, this doesn’t constitute moral actions. For example, in Kant’s eyes a parent who takes care of their children because is what they desire to do because they love them shouldn’t be morally praised because they are doing it for themselves rather than doing it because they acknowledge they have an obligation and it is the right thing to do to fulfill that obligation. He continues and goes on to refute prudence (rational self interest). To better understand this concept, we can think of the example of a lady who believes she can earn a greater income if she cheats her customers, but refuses to do so, not because she knows it’s the wrong thing, but because she fears being caught and losing her customers. By providing this example,

Kant can therefore be seen as one of the first thinkers to strive to amalgamate both ideologies into one, altering the course of philosophy. His focused lied on the task of seeking metaphysical knowledge, searching for answers to questions encompassing the ideas of, for example, God, or human souls. We will therefore explore the implication of Kant’s statement on the topic of knowledge, experience, and reason, with thorough examination of his work ‘The Critique of Pure Reason’.