The Ethics Of Kant 's Life

According to Kant, we can control the will and meaning behind our actions. The morality of an action should be assessed by what the motivation of the action is. The moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done. This is due to the fact that , for Kant, what the motive behind your

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.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

Kant believed achieving the intended end-result of the actions is often out of our control; therefore, the morality of our actions does not depend on the outcome or consequences. He believed the will behind the actions is the only thing that can be controlled (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.) Therefore, the consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant.

In the military action, my decision is to go after the enemy and rescue as many villagers as I can. The thought process that led to my decision was people are at risk in the village and someone must save them because it is the good action to do, regardless of consequences. Also, I have enough the manpower and equipment to defeat the enemy in the village. I may cause a few deaths of women and children in the village but, most of the villagers will be saved and the next village would be saved as well. The effects of my decision are the various children who will be without mothers or vice versa, the amount of punishment I will receive from my commanding officer for not following orders. The people may see me as a hero, who rescued them from an enemy and saved many families from terror. On the other hand, other people may say my actions were idiotic and voluntarily disrespecting

Looking at case study 1 considering the theories we have discussed during this THL 270 course, I have decided to advise Sarah to lie on her resume. When I first examined this case study at the beginning of this course, I advised Sarah of the same thing as I do now, but my ethical reasoning was different. I originally took the standpoint of John Stuart Mill and his theory of Utilitarianism. I said my reasoning was this because she would be doing a greater good for a greater number of people by lying. I do not discredit this theory now, but I feel my ethical reasoning’s align more with another theory. I also have formed greater understandings of theories presented in this course to better advise Sarah.

The implication of Kant’s Deontological Ethics is that a human being should not make a promise if they don’t intend on keeping it. As well as, a human being should not lie or break a promise for the sake of achieving or escaping from something because in the end they will suffer more rather than benefit from it. Kant says that if a human being wants to make a false promise, then they should ask themselves this, “Is there going to be any consequences from this lie?” If not, then it can be an advantage to the person. Kant talks about the imperatives as good: hypothetical; attainment of something else and categorical; good in itself. According to Kant, humans’ action should always be viewed at the same time as an end (59). No, this cannot be

The relationship between free choice and moral politicians in the eye’s of Kant is such that, in order to have long lasting peace in the world it is required that people with authority to make choices for their states that do not just benefit them as an individual in the short run, but the state as a whole in the long run. Thus the coining of the phrase, moral politicians. This idea of moral politicians is tied closely to that of Kant’s theory of perpetual peace. In this theory there are three parts that must hold: all states have a republican constitution, a federation of states, and cosmopolitan law.

“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.

If a philosopher who follows Kant’s Deontology theory had to be one of the Jury member for a case in a court house that involves someone who the judge is considering to give the death penalty. The philosopher would agree that the individual should be put to death. For the reason that the individual broke the law and committed a crime that shouldn’t have been done be anyone who are govern under the law. Also the Philosopher would believe that the rules should be follow no matter what happen that cause the individual to break the rules in the first place. The Philosopher would believe that the person intention when committing the crime was not good so the individual would have to deal with the consequence of their action. For example if an individual was found guilty for planning to kill another person and end up getting caught. The philosopher would say since the individual was plan ways to kill the victim then their intentions was not right. The individual that is being charge for the crime intended to break the laws and murder the person so that the individual will not live any more. The prisoner had prepare different ways he or she wanted to try to take the life of another individual. As a result the prisoner would deserve to be punish and the charges that were bought on to the individual should not be drop. For the reason that the prisoner knows that he was breaking the law and he or she was intension was not to help the individual who end up being

China is one of the countries in the world involved in the most intense human rights violations seen in history for many years now. The United Nations have intervened several times arguing in favor of one of the most important points of Immanuel’s Kant’s human rights view. Kant’s moral and political theory plays a huge role in human rights. According to Kant, the power of the state should be limited in order to protect the people living in it. This way the government would be constrained by the law and it will allow individuals to think and decide for themselves which is how Kant explains how a human being should be rather than wait and be told by others. He assumes that if one is able to act for itself then in the end, that person will

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)

When talking about whether or not consequences of an act have anything to do with morality, one must think of all the ways in which an individual’s acts could be considered morally wrong. Morality relates to conduct, whereas they both involve some type of action that is partaken by the individual, which can be mistaken as being “good” even though the consequences are considered bad (Dewey, 1891).When a person performs an action, and the outcome of that action is a negative one, we often find ourselves blaming anything other than the individual themselves because we believe they had no foresight on what was going to happen. Dewey describes that when conduct and character are involved in telling if somebody is being moral, or immoral, we are unable to say whether or not the action was good or bad until we know how that action turns out and we know what the consequences are. (Dewey, 1891).