Deontological ethics

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

Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803), an American patriot and politician, once stated, "Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason"[1]. This statement is significant, as it undermines two of the primary ethical doctrines in philosophy - the deontological perspective defended by Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (634), and utilitarianism, supported by John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) in his essay, Utilitarianism (667). Deontology and utilitarianism are contrasting

By the end of section II of The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant has established that, if there were a supreme moral law, it would look like the categorical imperative. His task in the final section of the Groundwork is to show that there does in fact exist such a moral law by proving that we have free wills, and secondary to this, he wants to show why we actually take an interest in morality. This paper will provide an account and evaluate the success of Kant’s argument in this final

How much a lie can affect us? By definition lie means: A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally (2). A lie it’s compound by two characters; the person who tells the lie and the person who believes on the lie without knowing. It creates a fantasy environment in which the person who believes in it creates their present and needs around it, while the person who tells the lie keeps creating an imaginary world in

Anyone or anything that is rational possesses will, whether it is a human being or a field mouse. Freedom is the property that this causality has. Thus, a free will can be defined as a will that can act causally without being caused by external sources. Any action not based on a form of law would be seen as groundless and unjustified and we then would not be able to say our actions were the result of our own will. Kant adds to this point by saying the laws we base our actions upon must be self-imposed

on rules, principles, duty and goodwill. This theory is basically based on our ability to act as rational human beings. A good example of Categorical Imperative universal theory is “In law a man is guilty when he violates the rights of others. In ethics he is guilty if he only thinks of doing so.” (Immanuel) In this case we can apply Categorical Imperative in answering the following questions: 1) Are the changes to Municipal Police Pensions in Nova Scotia are sin the public interest? 2) Is the change

Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals presents an interesting moral duty: that all people be treated as ends in themselves. As a result to this duty, Kant outlines imperatives adressing how to—and not to—treat other people. Some people regard these imperatives as “strict” and “not applicable” to reality. They believe Kant’s moral imperatives have practical exceptions despite suggestions for strict adherence, and they feel that Kant’s imperatives fail to answer real-world dilemmas;

Immanuel Kant argues in his Groundwork’s for Moral Philosophy, against the instrumentalists, who saw humans as a means to God and the world – instruments benefiting God. He innovates a new way of looking at action, the metaphysical question on how to see if an action is moral in a certain circumstance . He contends that the rules for morality must be derived from duty, the Categorical Imperative(CI ). Kant’s Catagorical Imperative can be explained by deconstructing the term: Imperative because it

In Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, the theory of ethics is majorly based on acting according to duty. From this thought he created The Categorical Imperative; “act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will. This is the only condition in which a will can never be in conflict with itself, and such an imperative is categorical.” (42) Basically, morality is needed to choose “right” over “the pleasing.” From this, there are two

philosophical beliefs that we as autonomous beings should per sue universal maxims as law, in order to be virtuous and live a good life. The main difference between the categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative is the hypothetical imperative ethics, incorporated ideas such as things are situationally right and wrong actions (Johnson). While hypothetical imperative views considered principles such as means to ends, it did not consider the duty aspect in which Kant believed was the most important