Kantian Ethics states that all morality can be reduced to respecting autonomy. This theory has faced criticisms as well as support. Its most plausible idea is that autonomous agents are capable of making their own decisions and even if their choices may not be the best for them, these choices should be respected. However, criticisms of this theory include concerns such as 1) respecting autonomy is not equivalent to respecting the autonomous agent, 2) the theory does not concern (or concerns very little) with non-autonomous agents such as children and non-human animals, 3) it is implausible that respecting autonomy is the only factor determining morality, and 4) respecting others’ autonomy does not follow from respecting one’s own autonomy. And despite counter-arguments to these concerns, I will present that it is implausible that all of morality can be reduced to respecting autonomy of autonomous agents.
Kant defines morality as a law for rational beings, for which freedom is a property of. And because rational beings have the idea of freedom and act under this idea, they are regarded to have practical reason and be capable of making independent judgements and imposing the moral law on themselves, which he defines as moral autonomy. This theory is also supported by Kant’s The End-In-Itself Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, where he states that people’s rational nature is never a means to an end, but an end in itself. This implies intrinsic value to autonomy and emphasizes respect to this sole significant moral factor. However, respecting autonomy is not necessarily equivalent to respecting the agent and their choices. In Kant’s argument of disallowing suicide, he declares that suicide disrespects one’s own autonomy by br...
... middle of paper ...
...duced to respecting autonomy as Kant proposes.
Works Cited
Baron, Marcia W. Kantian Ethics Almost without Apology. Cornell University Press, 1999. Print.
Christman, John. "Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011. Web. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/#BasDis.
Kant, Immanuel. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. The Electronic Classics Series, 2013. Web. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/kant/Metaphysic-Morals.pdf.
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.
Riker, John H. Ethics and the Discovery of the Unconscious. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997. 92. Print.
Stark, Cynthia A. "An Unapologetic Defense of Kant's Ethics." Ratio. 1998. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Johnson, R 2014, ‘Kant's Moral Philosophy,’ The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
Morgan, Michael L., ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd Edition. Indianapolis. Hackett, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kant, Immanuel, translated by Wood, Allen W. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf
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.
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter Markie, Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. 4th Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Critiques of Kantian moralist theory such as Williams believe that Kant’s moral theory is characterized by Impartiality and unresponsiveness to any picky associations to picky person. Abstraction from specific characteristics of an agent is what is believed by the critiques as to be a qualification for a universal moral principle that can apply to similar
O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill.
Growing up we are put in situations where we learn what is the moral thing to do and non moral just by our upbringing like religion, culture, and or race. This is called Ethics which is one of the major branch of philosophy that systematize, defend, and recommend concepts of right and wrong conduct. With that being said there are different kind of ethical approaches different philosophers discovered/ believed in which lay in the structure of consequentialist (the consequence of an action), Deontological ( duty, obligation, motivation, intention), and teleological ( striving to be a certain kind of person or fulfilling a kind of purpose ). In this paper I’m going to be defending Kant’s deontological theory which
Pettit, Philip. “Consequentialism.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 230-240. Print.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.