To followers of this theory the act itself must be morally right. It is for this reason that the deontological perspective would be considered one of ethical absolutism or objectivism, rather than ethical relativism. In this case, supporters of Kant’s theory would argue that there are moral rules which hold for all persons in all situations, and which allow for no exception. They might even take this…
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher from the 18th century who is well known as an essential person in philosophy today. He has made the argument that there are a set of essential ideas that structure human experience and is the source of morality. His thought continues to have a major influence in contemporary thought, especially the fields of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics. Kant’s theory on morality as often been criticized on being too…
The foundation of the metaphysics of morals is a critical examination of a pure practical reason.…
Immanuel Kant, disagreed with the Utilitarian principle that maximized happiness for the greatest number of people. In chapter 2 of his book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant theorizes an external critique that we don’t always act for desires but duty instead. Kant really has this worry and he wants to find a firm foundation for our moral laws. According to Kant, Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Universal moral law is not empirical, not based on experience because then it is not justified and can take on different meanings. Once you strip away everything empirical, contingent, subjective about you will be left with a rational (form of the action itself). When…
This essay aims to argue the views of two different theorist, Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, with regards to their views on moral worth of an action. The idea of good and bad creates heated debates among many, but this essay will successfully unravel the layers of Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism and his belief that all our motives are driven by pleasure and pain. While arguing Kant’s opposing argument that moral worth of an act revolves around democratic attitudes, and that moral truths are founded on reasons that is logical to all people. When one breaks down both theories, it occurs that Kant’s theory comes out to be the more sensible one in numerous aspects.…
In this essay I’m going to address questions concerning Kant’s grounding for the metaphysics of morals. First, I will describe each of his examples of acts done out of desire and acts done out of duty. Then I will answer the following questions: 1. What conclusion about moral worth does Kant use these examples to illustrate? 2. Whether I agree or disagree with Kant that if you perform an action out of duty, then the act has more moral worth that it would if you were to perform it out of the desire to make someone else happy—using my own example of a moral act done out of the desire to make someone else happy.…
Utilitarianism is divided into two: - the rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. The rule utilitarian considers the consequences of adopting certain rules whereas the act utilitarian disregards the level of the rules and sticks only to the principle of the utility. Thus the advantage of the rule utilitarianism is that it considers the parameters like justice, beneficence and laws and legal rights which lacks in the act utilitarianism. Kantianism mainly rotates around the following objectives. According to Kant “maxim” is the moral worth of an individual’s action that depends exclusively on the moral acceptability if the rule on which the person acts. Since the maxim applies to every individual that performs the similar act in the similar condition it has been declared as an universal law. The second…
Emmanuel Kant (hereinafter “Kant”) believes that Ethics is categorical and states that our moral duties are not dependent on feelings but on reason. He further states that our moral duties are unconditional, universally valid, and necessary, regardless of the possible consequences or opposition to our inclinations (Pojman and Vaughn 239).…
Kantians do claim that the principle of universalisability is a standard of rationality but it doesn’t have to be the only one (Luco, Week 11 Notes p.16), and yet in the first argument I have proven that the principle of universalisability itself fails as a standard of rationality when maxims are vague. Furthermore, even if the principle of humanity can be useful as an essential framework for moral deliberation rather than an independent and determinant guide (Hill, 2006), the flaws of the scope in the principle itself would render it unable to be considered a framework for deliberation when careful deliberation of the principle would permit various forms of immoral acts. Hence, even if the value of Kant’s theory is diminished to that of a guideline than a rule of morality, it is hard to see how it could be considered a plausible moral theory when it fails to take into consideration of these loopholes that are created from its…
Immanuel Kant states that the only thing in this world that is “good without qualification” is the good will. He states the attributes of character such as intelligence, wit, and judgment are considered good but can be used for the wrong reasons. Kant also states that the attributes of good fortune such as health, power, riches, honor, that provide one happiness can also be used in the wrong way (7). In order to understand Kant’s view of moral rightness, one must understand that only a good will is unambiguously good without qualification, it is “good in itself”. To clarify, Kant states that “a good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, i.e. it is good in itself” (7). To Kant, a good will is the only thing that gives action moral worth. Human beings were granted with reason not only to attain self-preservation and a state of happiness, but “its true function must be to produce a will which is not merely good as a mean to some further end, but it good in itself” (9). Human beings are called to exercise reason through duty to bring a universal good to all. This duty, living according to our highest reason, must be exercised through action that is beneficial and non-contradictory to all. Duty has three major qualifications for Kant. One must recognize that duty is good in itself when an action is performed out of the need of the completion of the duty itself, such as one who abstains from supporting a large restaurant corporation that inhumanely raise cattle or poultry, because he or she recognizes that it is a duty to not perpetuate unethical practice. Or one who carefully recycles their waste not because of the pleasure of being an enlightened “green” individual, but because of the recognition that it is “good in itself” to reuse products. The second…
According to Kant, he believes that the only thing unconditionally good is good will. Good will is the idea of people having to do ones moral duty. Kant’s ethical theories are based off of the categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives, as stated during class, act only on those rules that you can rationally will to be universal. In response to Kant’s theory, I believe that good will is not the only thing that is unconditionally good. I believe this because there will be many instances in life where having a good will can lead to tragic situations.…
Kant objects to the utilitarian approach as he claims it is practical and political. Kant believes the punishment must fit the crime and punishment itself when carried out accordingly and just, punishment is not evil. Kant’s moral theory is not especially preoccupied with punishment, and should not be thought of as primarily a theory of punishment. The reason for considering punishment at such length here is that in doing so, we can come to a better understanding of what Kant thought, and how he dissented from the utilitarian view, on the subjects of the moral importance of individuals’ well-being and what it means to treat someone with respect…
The two sources of moral guidance are the rivaling theories of Kantianism and Utilitarianism, both normative moral theories, meaning they deal with how we know what is right or wrong. Kantianism is a deontological theory developed by Immanuel Kant. This means that the theory holds the importance of duty and motives of an act in higher prestige than the consequences of said act. Kant argued, what came with is religiosity, that we, humans are rational, moral beings. This meant that we understand intrinsically what our moral duty is; this means that our motives that we act on will be based on what we feel it is our duty to do and then equally important goodwill. Goodwill is what, Kant believed to be good without question, for example murder and lying. This is where Kant introduces the idea of maxims. Maxims are rules that are formulated as rules to follow as moral law similar to a divine commandment e.g. do not murder, do not lie. Kant claimed that in order for a maxim to be used as a moral law it must pass the test that is Categorical Imperative (CI). The CI consists of 3 formulations, the Universal Law, this is the test of the logical possibility of universalizability – “Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will should become a universal law” which claims that if a maxim is universalizable then if every person were to follow the same maxim then the world would be a more moral place. Secondly was the End in itself which claimed that it is fine to use people to achieve goals as long as that is not all you use them for and lastly the Kingdom of Ends which was Kant’s logical combination of the two. Kant held two things on equal as Universalizable maxims and these were to never lie and to never murder, so in this case then Kant would agree on never murdering because he would argue that murdering is not part of a moral duty or a goodwill motive. Kant’s theory sounds all well and good but it lacks massive ecological validity because it is not applicable to…
The approach that we take with Kant's views is strictly based on reason. The key factor in this situation with Kant would ask if we did this action without any thought. Because Kant heavily argues that a moral person has to be rational, the thought process that you went through to arrive to the action is needed and very important. With this in mind we need to look at the other key concepts of his theory. With every action we take, we need to consider whether or not we are willing to say that it could be turned into a universal law. This law would then have to apply to everyone and there would be no exceptions. He believes that we should not lie in any circumstance. We need to maintain the no exception policy because it helps with the consistency of this theory. Most of Kant's beliefs are also based on duties to one another, ourselves, etc. We have a strict duty to benefit towards other people. We should strive to promote their welfare or as he says, "respect their rationality."…
Lord Krishna lays down two important requirements for a person to understand the most secret knowledge about the God, namely the uncarping spirit, and the faith.…
