The Fundamental Principle of Morality According to Kant

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.

The ethics of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) generally emphasize the necessity of morality and reason when it comes to certain actions. In his Moral Philosophy lecture, he discusses the essential human action of sexual desire and impulse. When reading Of Duties Towards the Body in Respect of Sexual Impulse, Kant describes why sexual impulses are immoral and how marriage is the only condition under which sexual impulses are permitted. Kant is right about certain sexual impulses being immoral but sex only after marriage isn’t as common as it used to be in his day and age. In this essay, I plan to argue how Kant’s views on moral and immoral sexual impulses are still present in today’s society but have changed over time. I am convinced that this is

Throughout Kant's text, there is a long-winded approximation of maxims being the only way a human can obtain a good will. Kant exclaims how he would never lie for unconditional reasons to maintain his own pure mortality. With no decisive justification on what would happen if multiple maxims clashed, a person could unfairly be accused of being impure. Upon a horrific case where one was required to lie or else they were to be forced to commit suicide, how would one who wishes to follow the categorical imperative's go about the situation? This goes against both of Kant's maxim he exclaimed. Would Kant deem an involuntary suicide as murder? If so therefor Kant would propose the person to tell the truth and kill themselves because it would be truly moral. “Actions that are truly moral must be in for their own sake, because they are right and not for some ulterior purpose” (Holmes, 1974). Kant fails to develop a system where actions are recognized as “sufficient reason for action” (1974). In a situation where one of his maxim-based laws were to be broken, a human's morality should not be questioned because (in Kant's eyes) they consider their life as conditional. There are various holes within the theory of categorical imperatives and present an unfair view of one's morality and good

Kant explains that a plausible motivation could be either desire or fear of consequences, and these would be hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are when rational beings use means in order to achieve an end. Categorical imperatives, however, are ends in of itself. He says that actions are only good if they are carried out "just because," which would be a categorical imperative. However, he argues that actions are usually not assumed for the sake of duty alone but because of some self-interest, which forces them to act out that action where they wouldn't have otherwise. This is evident when Kant states that "in fact,

Another topic that Kant contributed to is morality. According to Kant, moral laws cannot be derived from human nature. To put it in other terms, it is not human nature that should be used as a model to how we should behave morally. Kant believed that humans do not always make the right moral decisions because human nature can be flawed at times, often times choosing an animalistic desire over doing something that is morally permissible. In addition, Kant believed that the outcome of human nature is not the central issue when it comes to knowing what is right or what is wrong. Instead, Kant believes that it each of the individual actions that should be analyzed to see if it is morally wrong or if it is morally right. Kant’s point of view about morality is different from previous philosophers, because most of them looked to human nature in order to find the morally right things to do.

example is of a man who is suffering from many misfortunes in life and wishes to

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.

“If the action would be good solely as a means to something else it is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself accords with reason, then the imperative is categorical”. Kant

Kant claims that our actions are not completely moral if they are done only out of a sense of duty or obligation. Rational beings possess a will in that we can act in accordance to our own principles. We can choose to either align our will with the moral law and reason or with our personal needs, interests, and desires. Reason imposes certain demands, which Kant deems imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives desire an action for a certain result, not as an end in itself. Categorical imperatives command an action in and of itself that is not based on our needs and desires: “but what sort of law can that be the thought of which must determine the will without reference to any expected effect, so that the will can be called

Kant’s approach to morality does not seem to be as supportive as Mill’s. He begins his morality theory by the concept of good will. Here he explains how good will can be “good without qualifications.” (Kant 393) He continues to explain that will is good in it, not only because of the effects it has, but also because of the quality. The quality of will is what determines if an action is a moral one or not. Following this, Kant indicates that commands and imperatives are the two important factors that help the will. The imperatives are set into two different types, which are categorical and hypothetical. Between these two, he personally thinks that only categorical imperatives can be part of the laws of morality. He explains that the reason why is because categorical imperatives are what start up the self-will, hypothetical imperatives don’t. They depend highly on the

There is a clear difference between moral judgments and hypothetical imperatives. In saying that moral judgments are categorical imperatives, Kant is signifying them as unique and special in nature. This is an area in which modern philosophers find accord with Kant's ideas. These philosophers all agree that an "unconditional requirement" exists in moral judgments. In these types of judgments, there are pre-legislated right and wrong actions. These rules are absolute, and it is for this reason that moral judgments are distinguished from hypothetical imperatives.

In “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives,” Philippa Foot argues that moral judgments are in hypothetical imperatives rather than categorical imperatives. For Kant, categorical imperatives are actions that are good in themselves and do not depend on desires, while, hypothetical imperatives are “actions that are good to some purpose” (306). According to Foot, hypothetical imperatives alone serve as the basis of moral judgments because categorical imperatives give us no reason to obey them. In this paper, I will explain foots argument that moral judgments are hypothetical imperatives. I will then argue that that Foot’s theory of moral judgments fails in two ways. First, placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives fails to designate moral from immoral contingent ends, and second, the hypothetical imperative weakens morality by making it too optional. To show this, I will first argue that placing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives begs the question of what is the moral basis of its own contingent end. I will then propose a decision procedure for determining the moral value of the contingent ends of hypothetical imperatives. Then I will argue that the Leningrad does not solve and that basing moral judgments in hypothetical imperatives still makes morality too optional.

On the other hand, there are few to none examples of a Categorical Imperative, because as Kant would believe, they have to be actions that are good in themselves completely. To arrive at the Categorical Imperative, Kant starts off by explaining that an action is good without qualification if done from duty and not primarily from inclination, or ulterior motives. This, in a more simplified manner, means an action is good if it was the right thing to do and a person did it for the sake of duty and not because of anything else, like instincts or feelings. Kant believes there are very few people in this world that can actually live up to the standard of duty. From this point, Kant states that moral worth is determined by the rule or principle by which an action has been decided, not in the purpose to be attained by it. This statement goes back to the difference of means versus ends; is a person’s action based on the mean or is it based on ends? After Kant arrives at this, he then affirms that duty is the reverence for the law. The difference between reason and will is established at this point. Reason, or thought, can be described as theoretical or pure reason, or it can be described as practical reason. Kant describes theoretical reason as determining a given concept, but practical reason is idea of making the concept actual. Will, on the other side, can be broken down to either the “holy will” or empirically mixed

A simple way to define the difference is that hypothetical imperatives dictate if you want this, then you ought to do this. The goals are based on self-interest. On the other hand, categorical imperatives are unconditional and mandate that we recognize there is only one true imperative; always take the moral ground. According to Kant, moral truths are not received from on high through divine revelation or inspiration. Rather, they are based on reasons that make sense to all people who bother to think about

In his work, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals, Immanuel Kant talks about three formulations of imperative. The first formulation of imperative is “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Kant believes that our actions should be the same in all situations, regardless of the outcome. Some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Kant believes that emotions and consequences should not play a role in moral action. We are morally obligated or have a duty