Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of guilt
Effects of guilt
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of guilt
A Unique and Meaningful Life
A unique and meaningful life is compatible with the concept of a moral agent’s deliberative frame. In defense of this assertion, I will argue in favour of Barbara Herman’s Kantian discussion of moral obligation, which suggests that moral conflict occurs in the agent’s grounds of obligation. Grounds of obligation are facts recognized and considered by the agent during moral deliberation; they are “facts of a certain sort. They have moral significance because they are defining features of our (human) rational natures that limit what we can rationally will (as defined by the CI procedure)” (318).[1] The grounds are not reasons for acting but are guides for deliberation; the facts considered in a given situation are founded in one’s deliberative frame, namely matters of importance to the moral agent.[2] Similar to Herman’s defense of Kant, I will argue that moral conflict may occur among the grounds of obligation in the agent’s deliberative frame, but never in one’s duty because the CI will always determine only one moral obligation.
I will then anticipate two criticisms to counter Herman’s defense of Kant. The first criticism proposes that the individual field of deliberation - that contains “not only [the agent’s] interest and private projects but also the interests of others as possible sources of claims on [the agent’s] actions and resources” (331) - can lead to conflicting assumptions about duties in the members of society as a whole. And the second criticism arises from Herman’s rejection of the feeling of guilt in the Kantian model, in situations of moral conflict.[3] The critics I present accept that the moral agent has a life of her own following from the concept...
... middle of paper ...
... 1990.
Notes:
[1] Throughout my paper, I will be using “CI” as short form for Kant’s Categorical Imperative
[2] I will be using both female and male subjects when referring to the moral agent
[3] A “field of deliberation” is another way of defining the “deliberative frame” (as described above); both contain grounds of obligation when referring to the considerations taken by the moral agent during her deliberation
[4] Basically there are only two options since given the opportunity, she must save one.
[5] Restitution and Remainder are terms that need not be defined since my anticipated critics will focus on the notion of guilt.
[6] It may seem that the feeling of guilt is irrelevant to the discussion of an agent’s deliberative frame; however, the second critic hopes that finding a flaw in Herman’s argument will lead to a rejection of the concept.
Due to the ever increasing use of aspartame, researchers have discovered that aspartame has been closely associated with the function of the brain. In the human brain, there is a blood-brain barrier that acts as a system of specialized capillary structures that are designed to prevent toxic substances from entering the brain. Prior to birth and during the first 12 months of life, the blood-brain barrier is incomplete. The protective enzymes in a baby’s brain are still immature, and therefore are unable to effectively detoxify the excitotoxins, toxins that bind to certain receptors and may cause neuronal cell death when they enter the brain. This would mean that in the case o...
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...
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
Recent literature has aimed to reconcile the content of Kant and Aristotle’s work on morality, or at least, to compare the theories as though they are contending. However, I shall argue that the two philosophers are answering intrinsically different questions. If two philosophers operate within a precise domain of philosophy, it can be tempting to assess their distinct arguments as disagreeable with the other. However, in some cases, their arguments may be aimed at responding to different questions. In such instances, endeavors to reconcile or compare the fabricated ‘opposition’ between two arguments can be unproductive and perplexing, ...
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.
Some hold that Kant’s conception of autonomy requires the rejection of moral realism in favor of "moral constructivism." However, commentary on a little noticed passage in the Metaphysics of Morals (with the assistance of Kant’s Lectures and Reflexionen) reveals that the conception of legislation at the core of Kant’s conception of autonomy represents a decidedly anti-constructivist strand in his moral philosophy.
In this paper, I will critique Kantian ethic’s failure to defend beings disputably labeled “irrational.” The concept of a rational being is a common motif throughout Immanuel Kant’s “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.” These beings comprise the foundation of his entire argument. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, it is crucial to further examine what is meant by “rational.” Kant offers three essential requirements that separate rational beings from their irrational counterparts; the ability to reason, a moral will, and autonomy (53, 49, 41.) Rational beings are those included in his ideal “kingdom of ends” (39.) He defines this kingdom as “a systematic union of rational beings through common objective law” (39.) Since Kant’s code of ethics only applies to those deemed rational, some fundamental questions remain ambiguous. Firstly, in what manner should Kant’s higher capacity beings interact with those “incapable” of reason? Could those who fail to meet the three requirements be abused or exploited? Would this be justified? Some may conclude that Kant has evaded these inquiries altogether.
As opposed to Naturalism, the ethical theory of duty occupies a completely different domain. Immanuel Kant, the major advocate of this ethical appro...
In recent years, same-sex relationships have become more encompassing in US society. State legislation is changing such as accepting gay marriages, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and legal gay adoptions; the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community is becoming public. Gay-headed families, like heterosexuals, are diverse and varying in different forms. Whether a created family is from previous heterosexual relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption, it deserves the same legal rights heterosexual families enjoy. Full adoption rights needs to be legalized in all states to provide a stable family life for children because sexual orientation does not determine parenting skills, children placed with homosexual parents have better well-being than those in foster care, and there are thousands of children waiting for good homes.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
In Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant attempts to establish a valid basis for ethics. Specifically, he wants to develop an ethical system that has compelling power. He views the traditional, happiness-based ethics as insufficient because they lack compelling power, meaning that they do not have the power to curtail our actions. His solution is that people should be guided by the moral law, which can be discovered by pure reason alone, and which says that any action should be judged by whether or not it could serve as a principle in a universal law. However, I argue that Kant’s proposed ethical system fails in two ways. First, it lacks the compelling power that Kant thinks it has. Second, if the moral law is accessible via reason alone, then different cultures should not come up with the radically different ethical systems that they have come up with over history.
Thinking back on my childhood, I first remember all the times I played outside in my backyard. I would pretend to dig up dinosaur bones or create imaginary realms of ancient lands; there I would perform diplomatic services for the people in need. I was usually alone, and those are some of my fondest memories. When I first decided to become a teacher and thought about what is important to my philosophy on how children learn, I immediately knew I was a strong believer in play. Although, many decision makers such as legislators and school district leaders believe in more academic types of learning styles, my paper will discuss why play is so powerful and important to children.
An Article by Dr. Leong and Dr. Bodrova (2016) stated that play is beneficial to children’s learning especially when it reaches a certain degree of complexity. When they engage in play activities most of their early years, they learn to delay gratification and to prioritize their goals and actions. They also learn to consider the perspectives and needs of other people and to represent things significantly to regulate their behavior and actions in a cautious, intentional way.
Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (n.d.). Why is play important? Social and emotional development, physical development, creative development. In Creative thinking and arts-based learning preschool through fourth grade (2006 ed., pp. 53-55). Retrieved from http://www.education.com/ reference/article/importance-play--social-emotional/
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.