Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral. Kant believed that we as hum... ... middle of paper ... ... feel beneath you to uplift ones self.
Between philosophers Nietzsche and Immanuel Kant, we can conclude that Nietzsche has different views in which a man lives his life. According to Kant, we as human beings must act and live according the moral law. However, in regards to Nietzsche, he rejects the notion that there is a moral code for everyone and insists that each individual is able to see that there is no objective morality. Nietzsche’s greatest criticism of Kant’s philosophy of moral law, stems from his emphasis and use of the idea of the “overman”, which forms his opinion on liberal democracy (Hamilton-Bleakley). In order to understand Nietzsche’s critique of Kant’s philosophy, we must first understand what it is that Kant emphasizes in his theory of morality.
(Foot 1972: 311). Morality and its standards are often assumed to be 'intrinsically' motivating, and this is how they regulate society's behaviour. (Prinz in Batson 2011:41). Yet Batson suggests rather than intrinsically motivating, we conform to the principles to avoid social and self-rewards, where we are viewed as morally good. Morality for Kant is determined by whether certain moral actions could be turned into a universal maxim.
Immanuel Kant's Theory Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) discussed many ethical systems and reasoning’s some were based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral you might as well not make the promise.
From this idea of “a priori” concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the notion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified good is the “good will”, even if its efforts bring about a not necessarily good result. A “good will” is good because of the willing that is involved. Two main implications arise with this idea of the “good will”. The first implication is moral actions cannot have impure motivations. There are many impure motivations but Kant tends to focus mainly on the motives of the pursuit of happiness and self-preservation.
The moral debates continued to see good as merely that which gives happiness or pleasure. "…it was assumed that what we ought to do is always a function of what it would be good to bring about: action can only be right because it produces good (J.B. Schneewind 'Modern Moral Philosophy'). It was the breaking away from this idea that was perhaps the most important aspect of the works of both Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and David Hume (1711-1776). Hume's moral theory arose out of his belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or feelings cause action.
Morality stems from the idea of the ‘good will’, which Kant argues is the only thing truly ‘good’ in the world. Rational beings can bring about their wills through imperatives, or rules that rational beings follow to necessitate their wills, whatever they may be. There are two types of imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. Hypothetical imperatives are based on subjective principles of personal desire and want, which is why hypothetical imperatives have no moral worth. The categorical imperative on the other hand is unconditioned and thus entirely a priori.
It is important to understand why humans regard things as moral and Hume does an excellent job of explaining this based on observable human characteristics. This theory can then be used to judge the morality of questionable circumstances. A theory like Kant's lacks this quality. Since its basis is not observable it lacks the credibility for application. It does not apply to real world situations because it is not founded on real world data.
Immanuel Kant, Kantian deontology, is considered a fundamental figure of modern philosophy. Of his many principles, one of the most interesting by far is that of his take on moral law and duty ethics. It is Kant’s belief that an act of duty does not stem from personal ideals, but that it should come from respect for the moral law. There is no place for personal beliefs in these values. As will later be discussed in detail, Martin, Meaningful Work, disagrees with this opinion; Martin believes personal ideals and morals play a large role.
Mill holds an empiricist theory while Kant holds a rationalist theory. Kant grounds morality in forms that he believes, are necessary to free and rational practical judgment, namely his deontological ethics. Mill?s utilitarian theory is a form of consequentialism because the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the consequences. Thus, deontologicalism and consequentialism are the main criticisms for both these theories. Kant?s ethics of pure duty is the basis for his categorical imperative, which provides the basis for his universalist duty based theory.