The Ethical Concepts Of Kantian Ethics Essay

In my last project I talked about the urgent issue of bringing in CBD only medical marijuana items across state lines into Georgia. The dilemma was that the families and patients who urgently needed these products were subject to arrest because the products they obtained were brought over Alabama and neighboring states who haven’t passed the laws yet. This ties in with morals because the illegality of bringing in a harmless product to Georgia to treat little kids with seizures and much more is absurd and subject to ethical debate in my opinion. My own view is that it should not be illegal to transport CBD products over state lines if it is for the benefit and well-being of people with severe illness. Immanuel Kant and James Mill’s theories of the categorical imperative and utilitarianism each can be applied to this ethical debate in varying ways.

He also is very strongly opposed to lying. He takes a firm stance that any lie is

Kant was born in Germany in the Age of Enlightenment where Europe had two major events that changed it in terms of politics, social, and cultural. It was the Renaissance and the Storming of the Bastille in France and the eighteenth-century. A lot of scientists, writers, and philosophers have emerged, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Jean Jacques Rousseau, etc. These philosophers brought up new maxims, new theories that were taboo. In that perspective, Kant wrote Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, a book on Duty Ethics. For Kant, Duty Ethics is defined as a moral obligation, maxims that you cannot bind under any circumstances. The main two principles are the first principle of the categorical imperative and the second

Decision Alternatives: Currently the Vice President is faced with a daunting decision. The CEO has clearly expressed her position not to disclose the company’s situation. The knowledge of the chemically contaminated tanks, buried beneath company headquarters, is entrusted to a few key individuals. I would now like to discuss another author by the name of Peter A. French. In an excerpt of “The Corporation as a Moral Person” French states, “corporations can be full-fledged moral persons and have whatever privileges, rights and duties as are in the normal course of affairs accorded to moral persons” (French, 1979). Peter French argues that corporations have “responsibility relationships.” By identifying who is responsible, one can simultaneously determine who is liable. Corporations, as Peter French would argue, have a social responsibility.

The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant regards moral actions as right or wrong regardless of context or circumstance. This approach to ethics is known as deontological as it considers the actions themselves as opposed to the consequences; what one should do in practice should be thought of as substantive concepts. Along with our fundamental ability to recognise this, Kant strongly believed that it is our duty as individuals to utilize our ability to wield reason and rationality as morally autonomous beings. These obligations manifest to Kant in two distinctive forms: those that are Hypothetical Imperatives and those that are Categorical Imperatives.

Kant’s principle of autonomy is an important part of Immanuel Kant’s ethical theories. Though it may seem that such an important piece of Kant’s theory would be undeniable but there have been oppose its place in Kantian ethics. To provide evidence that Kant’s principle of humanity would stand up to arguments against autonomy. Initially, I will illustrate the purpose and reasoning of autonomy in the principle of humanity. I’ll then provide an argument attempting to disprove autonomy’s place in Kant’s theory including the concept of moral luck. Finally, I will address inconsistencies with this argument and how the principle of humanity is sustainable even with this opposition.

One of the beautiful things about Kantian ethics is that it is based on the individual. The individual can decide if their actions are worth doing to another person by weighing if the person would want the action done to them. The Kantian point of view is completely different from the Utilitarian point of view because the Kantian point of view deals with the individual, whereas the Utilitarian point of view deals with the group and the needs of the group. When you hear the words “basic human rights” or the word “right,” normally that responds to the individual, and rights in many cases are from the Kantian viewpoint. For instance, when a police officer responds to someone in need, they are responding from a Kantian viewpoint – the

Kant claims that humans have a special kind of value that nothing on this earth has. To support this claim, Kant says that humans are the only beings on earth who can have this intricate reasoning: “…we are each rational and autonomous and that these traits are what justify our moral status. . . It takes a lot of brainpower to be able to formulate your goals, to imagine a world where everyone pursues them as you do…” (Shafer-Landau, 2012, p175). Kant believes that being rational and autonomous makes humans worthy of respect. A respect that makes humans worthy of greater respect than anything else. As humans we possess the responsibility for the choices we make, the goals we aim for and the manner in which we do so. This makes

Immanuel Kant’s principle is a deontological moral philosophy proposing that people must follow an absolute moral standard that does not differ based on individual conditions. Kant believes an action is ethical if it is done not for one’s own pleasure, but if the act is good in itself. He explains this by stating that each of our actions reflects one or more maxims, a principle or intention upon which we act. ‘Duty’, for example, is an objective maxim because it is “irrespective of all objects of desire”. Kant refers to the objective maxim as the Categorical Imperative, which signifies an unconditional obligation that one should abide by in any situation and is justified as an end in itself.

relate to the nature of our actions themselves, not just what the consequences of those actions could be. This is the only way I could accurately explain this point better, imagine you could somehow prevent the fatality of 100s of people, by causing one-person pain, or possibly death. Which they hadn't done anything to warrant this consequence. A consequentialist the opposite of Kant might say this was justified because of the happiness it resulted in for the 100 lives that were saved. Kant, on the other hand, believes in individual rights and duties. He would likely say that causing pain to the innocent person was wrong, regardless of whether it had positive consequences. For Kant, a given act can be required you must do it to be moral, permissible you can do it if you want, or impermissible it's immoral to do this act.

Each guide line for ethics is personal. My person view of ethics may differ from others around me. While, Immanuel Kant’s morals may be harsher than what society accepts today, there is a certain acceptance for his thought on categorical imperatives. However, with society being more developed than ever before, there may be some issues with Kant’s view as well. These issues can be understood, in this ethical dilemma, from what the executive committee’s intake will be. This ethical problem displays the fact that, each ethical issue will come down to personal principal and views.

“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.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German founder of critical philosophy, was one of the first great philosophers to truly define deontological ethics. Kant believed that nothing is considered good without a form of qualification except good-will, and good will is one that acts accordingly and out of respect for moral law rather than out of one’s personal inclination. Prohibiting using a person as a means rather than an end, which was a main principle of Immanuel Kant’s way of thinking, became the basis of deontological ethics that became widely discussed by philosophers in the end of the 20th century. On a more macro scale of thought, protecting the rights and liberties of humans and, therefore, the duty to not violate them, can be seen as a major goal and platform that many deontological ethicists stand upon.

Kant was born in 1724-1804, he was a German thinker from East Prussia (now Russia), and he spent his whole life in his hometown. Kant wanted to create a logical, stand-alone theory that wasn’t just based on assumptions, he believed in an objective right or wrong that is decided on reason and that we shouldn’t do the right thing just because it’s right and not to fulfil our desires. Can we lead a life following his ideals are there not some situations where a perfect moral decision cannot be made, are all our choices fuelled by personal gain and desire?

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.