Book Report on Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals by Kant
Kant states (38,) "act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature". This "categorical imperative" forms the basis of his book, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Though at times his writing is confusing Kant lays out his logic as to what a categorical imperative is. Kant divides the book into three sections. The first explains the transition from everyday moral beliefs to the philosophy of those morals. The transition from popular moral philosophy to the metaphysics of morals is explained in Section II. Kant ends the book explaining how the metaphysics of morals is seen in everyday moral beliefs. In essence he forms a circle of reason, from common morals to philosophy, philosophy to metaphysics and metaphysics back to common morals.
In the Introduction Marvin Fox explains three things to pay attention to when reading The Metaphysics of Morals. First, the book is Kant's second major ethical work and to fully understand it you need to read The Critique of Pure Reason. Next, Metaphysics is not a guide for a complete moral philosophy; it provides the foundation for a moral philosophy. Third, Kant creates many of his own technical terms, which can be confusing.
Kant has two purposes in the Preface. First, he explains where the idea of morality fits into the three sciences, Physics, Ethics and Logic, of Greek philosophy. Morality the "laws by which everything out to happen"(Kant, 3) is the rational part of ethics. Kant is also careful to differentiate between rational and empirical laws. To Kant, morality can never be based on experience; it is always a priori. Morality exsisted b...
... middle of paper ...
...real example. The categorical imperative is carried out for it's own sake and any example would be tainted. Kant even goes on to state that any "empirical evidence of a moral law is highly prejudice to the purity of the moral law" (43)
Kant next introduces the idea of the "Kingdom of Ends" (50) Stated simply, humans are members of a kingdom that is governed by one law which encourages them to treat themselves and others as "ends in themselves" (50). In the kingdom everything either has value or dignity (51). Something with value can be replaced by anything else while something of dignity has an intrinsic value that can not be replaced. Humans, as rational creatures, are priviledeged to be members of the Kingdom of Ends and should strive to find the dignity of the Kingdom. This is the only reason Kant provides for people to follow the categorical imperative.
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
Immanuel Kant’s work on Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals explores the understanding of morels, and the process of which these morals are developed through philosophy. He also disentangled the usefulness and foundation of the instituted of religion.
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 ...
Another, more obvious problem with the first step of the categorical imperative is the black and white nature of the world in Kant’s opinion. He simplifies morality to an extreme extent with no room for argument. For example, Kant believes that suicide is wrong, no matter what, because if this became a universal law, “one [would see] at once a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature” (Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 31). However, suppose there is a case in which a rich person has an abundance of food, and a poor person, on the brink of death from starvation, has none. Is it truly morally wrong for that person to take food? Can it really be said that this person has done a bad thing, when it is in the pursuit of survival, and comes at the cost of no one? In Kant’s opinion, yes, this man has had a moral failing, and I therefore argue that Kant has changed the makeup of what morality is, inventing his own rules for what is ethical without regard for the thoughts and opinions of other people in different situations from his own. Kant seems to deny the possibility of alternate viewpoints, and that some situations are much more difficult to deal with morally than others, such as in the case of the greater
“The categorical imperative would be that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end, (Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd Section, Immanuel Kant, 1797). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is basically not to be a ‘means to an end,’ or not use people as tools for your own personal gain. Take for example during colonial times when a family would give there child to a master craftsman, so that the child would learn that particular trade after so many years of working. Many of these trades were medicine, blacksmith and carpentry; from the moment the children were given to the master craftsman they now depended on the craftsman for food, shelter and knowledge. The children would work long hard hours tending to whatever the master needed or wanted. Kant would not have agreed with these practices because both parties were using each other; the children was in essence a slave for the master craftsman because he did whatever he was told but the child is also just using the master for his insight. “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable that are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention
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.
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...
... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.
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.
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.
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
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.
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”.
Kantianism is named after a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived in 1724-1804. According to Kant, the only thing that is good is good will; moreover, the good will builds the whole structure of the society. Kantianism is based on the intent of the action or person’s intention which are the predominant attributes of the good will. The basic principle of Kantianism theory depicts the idea of universal truths. It explains that a moral rule must be universal. Also, it describes that people should be treated with respect. Moreover, it explains the credibility of an action why it is right or wrong and convinces the user with logical reasons. Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative, which describes a set up to explain, “What makes a moral rule appropriate?” One version of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for a person to use himself or another person uniquely as a means to an end. Most of the time it is easier to use the second version of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view. For example, in the case of Jean, misusing the responsibilities of someone else’s duty. It was wrong for Jean to treat the profession of the doctor as a means to an end. Jean deceived the profession of the doctors with the goal of getting benefit to save his nephew. It was wrong for jean to misuse his responsibilities rather than to think that he can find a way to look for a doctor. We can also look at this scenario using the first version of the Categorical Imperative. Jean wanted to save his nephew Pierre. A proposed moral rule might be, “Take a decision in his hands to save his nephew.” However, if everyone followed the same rule, it will diminish the sense of duty, responsibility, and the respect of the profession. If everyone will act the same way in this type of situation and try to misuse his or her professional responsibilities, then there will