At its core, Kantian philosophy is a more complex version of the golden rule, a principle traditionally associated with religious ethics. The premise is to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”; the rule’s maxim advises reciprocity of actions amongst individuals. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher, believed this rule was flawed; it required a more comprehensive structure and logical means of justification in order to avoid a perverse interpretation. For the rule to become universal law one must individually act for the universal good, rather than self-serving motivations, and expect nothing in return. Kant’s moral requirements, “Categorical imperative”, stipulates that rational individuals perform acts that are …show more content…
The Amoralist is a person who although believing in right and wrong, simply doesn’t care about morality whatsoever. Such as person treats the ideas of morality like a normal person does quantum physics, they recognize they exist; yet they have no impact on their day-to-day life. The line of reasoning for Amoralist’s is as follows; people have reason to do something only if it will help them get something they want, yet moral duties sometimes prevent people from getting what they want. Thus, sometimes we lack a reason to preform our duties, making the violation of moral obligations rational. This argument is reasoned correctly, as even Kant himself admitted, as he followed the hypothetical imperative, which tells us to do whatever is needed in order to get what we want. However, the first categorical imperative is once again Kantianism’s stalwart against such reasoning. Yet another lesson derived from the golden rule of morality, Kant realized that for an effective moral code, our desires could not factor in for all matters. Once again Kant turned to his principle of universalizability and constructed the Argument for the Irrationality of Immorality which is as follows:
1. If you are rational, then you are consistent.
2. If you are consistent, then you obey the principle of universalizability
3. If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally.
4. Therefore if you are rational, then you act morally.
5. Therefore if you act immorally you are
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
This is known as the categorical imperative and it is “Kant’s test for right and wrong” (book 115). There are two forms of the categorical imperative that help formulate if an act is considered a moral obligation. To help grasp a better understanding on the matter, let’s start off by recalling that categorical means unconditional and applies to all persons, not just individuals. Therefore, categorical imperatives are universal. This brings us to Kant’s first form of the categorical imperative which states, “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law” (book 116). In other words, whatever you wish to act on make sure that you would do it again and that you would want everyone else to do it as well. For example, suppose you decided to steal a candy bar because you didn’t have money, but you were hungry. Now what would happen if everyone stole when they didn’t have money? Would you want this act to become a universal law? How are we supposed to decide when a law should become a universal practice? According to Kant, a law can only be universal if it is noncontradictory. In the stealing example, the law would become contradictory because if everyone stole, then no one would have money and therefore if you wanted to buy something you couldn’t. If everyone stole, then taking items would no longer be considered stealing and therefore you could not steal if you wanted to. Therefore stealing fails the test of Kant’s categorical imperative and is not considered morally correct.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
The categorical imperative is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
It is called the second formulation of the categorical imperative. According to Kant, it suggests that people should treat others as the way they want to be treated. He states, “Act in such a way that treat humanity, [...] always at the same time as an end never simply means” (36).All human beings have intrinsic value in themselves. Therefore human beings should not be view each other as tools that provide benefits. Instead we should treat each other well without thinking about the benefits we may get and treat others as same human beings as ourselves who are inherently valuable in
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Kant's Categorical Imperative Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted, regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “ The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willingness, i.e., it is good of itself”.
Kant invented the categorical imperative, which is a tool that can be used to understand whether certain maxims are rational, or not. Kant formulated the categorical imperative two different ways: the humanity formula and the universal formula. “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This is Kant universal formula, which one should use and think about before performing a certain action. It means that one should perform an action only if he or she believes that this particular action could be used as universal law. In other words only if he or she believes that we can leave safely in a world where everyone could repeat that same action. Dr. Arnold used the example of promises. If Tim makes promises to Ben but does not intend on keeping his promises. He should think about how the world will be if everyone makes promises that they don’t intend on keeping, after a certain time no one will ever believe promises