Kantian Ethics focuses on duties, rights, obligations, or principles. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act as if what action we decide would become universal law. The difficult part is determining whose duties and rights to abide by. Examining duty to the employer, duty to friendship, and duty to self is vital. Countless duties to an employer seem evident. I have a duty to work with reasonable knowledge and skill, I have a duty to be act in the interest of the company, and I have a duty to not take bribes. Simply stating my duties does not easily translate into practice. My duty to be honest and to not disclose confidential information complicates my decisions. My boss has specifically told me not to speak with anyone …show more content…
Together, we have worked together on previous endeavors. After getting hired on as CEO, she specifically recruited me. The duty of loyalty and respect to her prevents me from crossing her. Under the duty to friendship, I feel I should resign and keep quiet about the leeching sludge situation. Melissa Fahmy, who wrote, “Self-Improvement: An Essay in Kantian Ethics,” mentions that a distinctive characteristic of Kantian ethics is the duty that one owes to him or herself (Fahmy, 2013). I have not been sleeping at night, and I cannot possibly keep the leakage secret for two more years. The significant values I embrace comprise of honesty, compassion, and family. I know that I cannot let the Navajo community stay in the dark about their futures, but I cannot let my family down either. My duty to myself tells me to keep my job, but whistle-blow. Finally, I ask myself: “If I was to whistle-blow, would I want this to become universal law?” The direct part of this question is easy, as a compassionate person with character, I would always want to protect communities from harmful ground water. The underlying question is what needs to be examined. Would I want everyone to whistle-blow for a similar situation? How certain am I? The company agrees that there is a strong possibility that the tanks are leaking harmful chemicals into the ground. I feel because the possibility is strong, whistle-blowing is …show more content…
The harmful effects of leeching sludge are relatively certain, and the damage could directly affect an entire community of people. While wearing my Utilitarian hat, I know that keeping quiet jeopardizes the Navajo reservation, potential stockholders, and society’s trust in the company. While using Kantian ethics analysis, I know that the duty to myself requires me to be honest and compassionate. Finally, after analyzing the problem using Rawlsian Justice, I realize that if I took friendship, family, and loyalty out of the equation, a group of reasonable people would come to the same conclusion that whistle-blowing is the only
Kant made a distinction between two types of duties which are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are rules or duties people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Hypothetical imperatives are sometimes called “if-then” imperatives, which are condit...
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.
Duty and reason often conflict for an individual. An example that Kant uses is lying. When you lie, you expect that other people will believe your lie, you believe this because the universal law is that you should be truthful. In this situation you have expected that the universal law you should live by is to be truthful, but you have also decided that you are going to allow yourself to make an exception to this universal law and lie.
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
Categorical imperative is Kant's expression for the ethical law. It should give an approach to us to assess good actions and to make moral judgments. It is not summon to perform particular activities. It is basically a formal method by which to assess any activity about which may be ethically applicable. Kant along these lines utilized this to infer that ethical obligation is a commitment tying of every ethical operator without a special case. He accordingly highlight the plans for the ethical laws which are the three unique methods for saying what it is, and these include: dependably act in a manner that you could will that the adage of your demonstration turn into a general law, dependably act in a manner that you treat mankind, whether in
According to Kant, by acting out of moral duty we as humans fulfill the moral law to which we act out of respect for it. The moral law, which is also known as the categorical imperative, is Kant’s notion that man acts based on a, “universal maxim” without conditions (Groundwork pg.392). Kant’s notion of a categorical imperative is associated with objective ends. In other words, it declares what is right, not for individuals, but for mankind as a whole. Humanity, which comes from Kant’s notion of the categorical imperative, is understood, “as an end, never as a means” (Holtman pg.105). That is vital in comprehending Kant’s proposal that we as humans are the only beings capable of acting on the basis of policies or plans (Johnson pg.21), or in accordance with moral law. Unlike animals, humanity to humans is not something that serves to satisfy one’s instinctual pleasures, it is instead something which guards our existence through which man attains life. It is from this
The categorical imperative is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be
...to lie on occasion as result of better results or to not harm the other person. For example, if a teenager does not tell his parents he snuck out and drove their car then he avoids punishment if he simply says he never went out. Also, if a girl does not like the dress her friend is wearing but still says she does, then she lies for the benefit of her friend rather than causing harm. Although people still lie, they are still able to act morally in accordance with universal law. Overall, I believe it depends on the circumstances and individual on whether or not humans are obligated to act morally because morality is for the sake of the individual while obligation would be for the sake of others or the community. As a result, rather than a moral “obligation” to act, it should be replaced by desire so that people would want to act a certain way instead of feeling forced.
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...
There are many different ethical theories that we have learned about throughout the semesters. The three theories I have decided to use in arguing about same sex marriage are Natural Law, Utilitarianism, and Kant’s Theory. With each ethical theory, I will state why I chose the theory that addresses the situation and discuss the pros and cons of each of the theories.
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
In this chapter I will explain Immanuel Kant concept of what is right and how the categorical imperative plays an important role in his moral philosophy.