Analysis Of Kant's Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morality
Morality is term that allows people to differentiate between intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are either good or right versus those that are bad or wrong. This may seem like a simple task to distinguish in todays society, however philosophy has took a much more intricate account of what morality is. Philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, and philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in his Leviathan, both have very different understandings on the basis of morality and the determination of what is “good”, “evil”, “right” or “wrong”. Kant believes that purely rational principles alone provide the basis for morality, whereas Hobbes establishes that human beings are self-interested entities driven by desire/aversion.
…show more content…
They command you to do X, whether or not you have the desire to do X. We must act in such a way that allows us to treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means. From this exposition, Kant argues that morality should not be something that differs from individual to individual; because we are rational human beings, we ought to give reasons for what we do, and we can act based on those reasons rather than acting simply because we want to. We should act, regardless of our own purposes, only on maxims (general ways of acting). For example, every human being should have the intention to act the same way another human being would in a moral dilemma. Thus, being rational means being able to act based on reasons that are universally defensible and acting on the basis of a “good will”. A “good will” is morally the most important aspect of an action. Only a “good will” can be good without qualification. The consequences of an action are of secondary of importance. Ultimately, there are three central propositions in Kant’s understanding of morality: (1) an action is only morally good if it is done from duty, (2) the goodness of an action is found in the intention, (3) because the law is universal, duty must follow from it. Any violation among these three propositions is considered immoral. Kant believes that the only way to accurate judgment concerning morality was a priori by means of pure practical
They command you to do X, whether or not you have the desire to do X. We must act in such a way that allows us to treat humanity as an end and never merely as a means. From this exposition, Kant argues that morality should not be something that differs from individual to individual; because we are rational human beings, we ought to give reasons for what we do, and we can act based on those reasons rather than acting simply because we want to. We should act, regardless of our own purposes, only on maxims (general ways of acting). For example, every human being should have the intention to act the same way another human being would in a moral dilemma. Thus, being rational means being able to act based on reasons that are universally defensible and acting on the basis of a “good will”. A “good will” is morally the most important aspect of an action. Only a “good will” can be good without qualification. The consequences of an action are of secondary of importance. Ultimately, there are three central propositions in Kant’s understanding of morality: (1) an action is only morally good if it is done from duty, (2) the goodness of an action is found in the intention, (3) because the law is universal, duty must follow from it. Any violation among these three propositions is considered immoral. Kant believes that the only way to accurate judgment concerning morality was a priori by means of pure practical