Immanuel Kant viewed the world in a very black and white manner. Good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, truth vs. lie, and so on. Some acts in life are invariably wrong and some are morally correct. Unlike Utilitarianism where the historical references and consequences are taken into account of the outcome to know if the action was moral or immoral, Kant’s deontology focuses solely on the act and its morality. A situation that leads to a neutral or even good outcome as a direct result of an action does not make the action moral. A seemingly good consequence does not justify an immoral act. Kant believed that morality comes from the self. Morals themselves are systematic rules that you place upon oneself because humans are ubiquitously rational beings and Kant thought that humans had rational duties to each other. Kant’s deontology is rooted in the ability to make a decision objectively because it is universally good and making the incorrect decision, including lying, disrupts that universal objectivity.
In Kant’s
…show more content…
The goodwill is unaffected by outside means. For example, if a cashier is given change by a customer and the cashier may give the customer the incorrect change to save some money. Although, the cashier gives the correct change because they were respecting the moral rules instead of doing it for pleasure or for the fear of getting caught (Philosophy Tube). Humans carry out their duties because they are the right thing to do, not because they serve the humans self-interest. In Kant’s second formulation of humanity, if every decision should be a rational action, it has to fall under principle and an end. It becomes a humans duty to impose or use other people as means to an end. Essentially, a person should not benefit off of someone else's suffering. Abiding by the principle is a given, but an action should have an end that is acceptable to everyone and does not exploit
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/
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
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.
Using Kantian philosophy a lie is always immoral and wrong, no matter what the situation is. Kantian ethics establishes the idea that good will be based on the action itself rather than outcome or any inclination one may have to perform an act could be good will.
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.
With different views on when it is OK to lie, the people continue to debate. But personally, I respect Kant’s views on the idea that lying is bad. Lying weakens the purpose to serve justice, destroys the liars’s dignity, and messes up the records. But I think that rare situations justify lies. I believe lies to save someone's life or just to protect someone from a big danger is the only type of lie that is justified. Those situations are the only times I think it is OK to lie. It might seem that lying to get yourself out of trouble is a situation that makes the lie justified. But I think that is a selfish reason for your own good and that people are thinking less about the society and more about their own good. Lying to get out of trouble is one of those many lies that are not justified.
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...
...nd this is the result of the unity of synthesis of imagination and apperception. The unity of apperception which is found in all the knowledge is defined by Kant as affinity because it is the objective ground of knowledge. Furthermore, all things with affinity are associable and they would not be if it was not for imagination because imagination makes synthesis possible. It is only when I assign all perceptions to my apperception that I can be conscious of the knowledge of those perceptions. This understanding of the objects, also known as Faculty of Rules, relies on the sense of self and is thus, the source of the laws of nature.
On September 11, 2001, this country was under attack and thousands of Americans died at the hands of terrorists. This action caused the U.S. Military to invade Iraq because of the idea that this country was involved in harboring terrorist and were believed to have weapons of mass destruction. This was an executive order that came down from our government, for us to go in and attack Iraq while searching for those who were responsible for the death of American lives. This war brought in many prisoners whom were part of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, whom the military took into custody many of its lower level members to get tips in capturing higher level members. During the detainees stay at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, many of these prisoners
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.
He states that in no case should you lie (Bennett 2). What Kant focuses on is deontology, this focuses on duty-based ethics. What duty-based ethics consists of is, doing what you should do for the right reasons, your moral obligations (Bennett 2). Sometimes people will do something they know is right to do but, for the wrong reasons. Someone may save someone’s life because they know they will get money out of it while they should be doing it to save that person with or without a reward. Kant believes that lying is wrong and immoral for anyone in any case, no excuses. Kant believes in a good will (Bennett 5). He believes that happiness cannot be achieved through a bad will. A good will must consist of truthfulness, doing the right thing and doing it because you care to help. Kant believes that along with having a good will, you should be morally good. Being “morally good” has to do with following the moral law. Under any circumstance, a person should never corrupt the moral law (Bennett 2). Everyone should live their life knowing and living by this moral law, never making mistakes and always making the right decisions for the right reasons. With the scenario given, telling a small lie to a friend, Kant believes that lying is against the moral law. Bentham wanted to optimize happiness, in that case lying was the answer. Whereas, Kant says that people deserve more than that, each person deserves to know the truth and should
Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.
A famous deontologist and philosopher was Immanuel Kant. He believed that the consequence of an action did not give an accurate display of a person’s good will. Good consequences and bad consequences can happen unexpectedly, so a person’s good will can not be driven by just a consequence of what happens. For example, if two men got drunk on a Friday night and man A ended up crashing into an innocent pedestrian while the other man made it home safely.