Criticisms of the Kantian moral theory No ethics theory, normative or not, is without its critics. Two more prominent criticisms of the Kantian moral theory are that of its disregard to the consequences, and its focus solely on rational autonomy. Kant determined that only those beings that had rational discretion were to be considered in the decision making of which acts were moral or not. This means those who are mentally ill (such as those who have dementia etc.) and animals are irrelevant when acting morally as under the Kantian theory as they are not fully aware of what is going on around them. This said; children are considered to be rational beings - despite not possessing full rational capacity - so one must give them the respect they demand. This is a disturbing loop hole in Kant’s …show more content…
For example, as under Kant’s theory, one must never lie (for it does not meet either categorical imperatives), and while under most situations the truth prevails regardless, some situations do call for a little more sympathy. Consider someone who is suffering after a physical trauma - distressed in regards to how society will react to their now scarred body – asking you if they would ever be accepted as “normal” ever again. Acting under your own moral judgement, most individuals would seek to calm this person down, to settle their worries, and would proceed to act out of empathy and tell them that they are still just like everyone else. However, this is lie, they are evidently not like everyone else – they are missing limbs and their skin is covered in scars, so Kant would rather you tell them this and worsen their distress. Beyond this, the instinctive reaction to lie to the individual out of empathy is deemed not morally praiseworthy as you are not acting out of a motive of duty (i.e. the duty to not lie); rather you have acted out of
The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.
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/
Many great philosophers have attempted to tackle the issue of ethics and, consequently, have come up with various ethical theories in order to define ethical and moral situations. In this paper, I will be summarizing a scene from the 2004, Academy Award winning film, Crash, and further analyzing it in terms of the ethical theories of Immanuel Kant. In terms of this scene, I will be arguing that Kant’s ethical theory provides a satisfactory analysis of its ethicality.
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.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
“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
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
Natural disaster causes damage for lives and their homes. Many families face a danger of lack of water and food, and transportation. Sarah and her children were struggling to survive from that disaster, and the only store is closed to prevent robbers from the community. Therefore, Sarah can perform an action that can be applied and relate to three ethical theories, Emotivism, Egoism, and Kant’s theory
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...
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.
The. Print. The. O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics.
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.