Immanuel Kant's Theory Of Morality And Duty

868 Words4 Pages
For centuries, philosophers and theorists have argued over the topic of morality. Trying to determine if a person can exhibit complete morality or whether other concepts like free will and the concepts behind self-interests will win out over morality and duty. They asked questions aimed at determining what can drive a person to ignore morality and duty as well as examining the actions that they felt embodied morality and duty. Immanuel Kant also sought to explain morality and duty. However, Kant’s perception of what constitutes morality was highly criticized and often discounted. Kant, perhaps better than any other philosopher attempting to address morality and duty, was able to see past the simplistic interpretation that by doing well for others a person could achieve morality and efficiently commit to their “duties’. According to Younkins, “Kant holds that the pursuit of a person’s own happiness is of no moral worth whatsoever” This is because Kant felt that in order to be truly moral a person’s actions must be absent of personal desire, gain or consideration. In that end, Kant, according to Younkins posited that in order to achieve morality the decisions to act must be 1) not meant to attain…show more content…
According to Baron Kant’s position on acting from duty is disturbing to some opponents because there would be no difference between the person acting solely from duty and the person acting from duty and wanting to act Baron also offers an explanation that many people may have trouble with Kant’s position on morality or duty because they do not understand what Kant was speaking of. ‘Duty’ for Kant does not mean social expectations or adhering to laws but rather the actions a person would take if they were fully rational In other words the actions a person would take absent from obligation, inclination, or any other pull that does not constitute
Open Document