Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
first categorical imperative
kantian ethics vs
kantian ethics analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: first categorical imperative
In Kantian ethics it is unethical to develop and install software to help a friend monitor their 16-year-old child’s phone and computer activity without their child’s knowledge. This would be a violation of the child’s privacy and everyone has a perfect duty to provide other people with privacy and not monitor or spy on them without their knowledge. According to Kant, rational people have to act according to the categorical imperative, which can be thought of as a sort of tool or set of rules that people can use to decide whether or not an action is genuinely morally acceptable. There are multiple formulations derived from it. The first formulation states that people should only act according to certain rules or maxims that can become universal laws that apply to everyone without contradictions. This means that in a given scenario, the situation should be generalized into a universal law. If this universal law is applied to everyone in a hypothetical world, it must make sense and be possible without contradictions. Even the hypothetical world does make sense without contradictions, it must also be a world that people would want to live in. If an action does not pass this test, Kant says that we have a perfect duty not to do that particular action ever. For example, people have a perfect duty not to lie because in a world where everyone lies, no one would ever know who was telling the truth, no one would trust anyone, and it would be a world that no rational person would want to live in. For each of these reasons, humans have a perfect duty not to lie to one another. It is also possible for certain things to be considered imperfect duties, or things that you should do some of the time but you’re not necessarily always obligated to... ... middle of paper ... ...child myself, I wouldn’t want to provide the tools which enable my friend to do so. I believe that people have a perfect duty not to spy on one another. As someone with a reasonable technical knowledge, I would inform the parent that there are other ways of controlling their child’s computer and phone usage without directly monitoring them and reading their conversations. For example, the parent could instead opt to block access to adult websites from the router, restrict functions such as video chat or picture messaging, and limit the amount of time a child can spend on their devices without viewing each and every individual thing that the child does. This way the child will understand what is expected of them with regards to their electronic device usage without feeling that their every move is being monitored and that their private conversations are being read.
Kantianism is named after a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived in 1724-1804. According to Kant, the only thing that is good is good will; moreover, the good will builds the whole structure of the society. Kantianism is based on the intent of the action or person’s intention which are the predominant attributes of the good will. The basic principle of Kantianism theory depicts the idea of universal truths. It explains that a moral rule must be universal. Also, it describes that people should be treated with respect. Moreover, it explains the credibility of an action why it is right or wrong and convinces the user with logical reasons. Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative, which describes a set up to explain, “What makes a moral rule appropriate?” One version of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for a person to use himself or another person uniquely as a means to an end. Most of the time it is easier to use the second version of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view. For example, in the case of Jean, misusing the responsibilities of someone else’s duty. It was wrong for Jean to treat the profession of the doctor as a means to an end. Jean deceived the profession of the doctors with the goal of getting benefit to save his nephew. It was wrong for jean to misuse his responsibilities rather than to think that he can find a way to look for a doctor. We can also look at this scenario using the first version of the Categorical Imperative. Jean wanted to save his nephew Pierre. A proposed moral rule might be, “Take a decision in his hands to save his nephew.” However, if everyone followed the same rule, it will diminish the sense of duty, responsibility, and the respect of the profession. If everyone will act the same way in this type of situation and try to misuse his or her professional responsibilities, then there will
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.
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency 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. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
I do not agree with parents eavesdropping some private conversation between their child and their child’s friend. It invades the child’s privacy and it would make him/her feel absolutely down about it since he/she can’t be free from his/her parents. Even if the parents tell their children that they have set up the spyware on their computer, they will always find a way to talk to their Internet friends privately. In paragraph 9, Coben stated, ¨Second, everything your child types can already be seen by the world-- teachers, potential employers, friends, neighbors, future dates. Shouldn’t he learn now that the Internet is not a haven of privacy?¨ First of all, this has nothing to do with Spyware. It is a good argument, but it doesn’t have to do with the parents actually. It’s the boy’s fault to type scandalous things on the Internet and it is his decision to do that. He shouldn’t have done that in the first place to avoid getting into trouble. In paragraph 12, Coben wrote, ¨Yes. But text messages and cell phones don’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet.¨ I agree that it doesn’t offer the anonymity and danger of the Internet. Nevertheless, he must’ve forgotten that people have a power to cyber bully other people through texts. Above all, the people who have a great desire to upload it on the Internet, could receive the inappropriate cyber bully. Hence, it also shows the danger of being cyber bullied. In paragraph 13,
Internet is advancing every day, parents have no idea what their kids are doing in cyberspace and are contemplating the idea of spyware. In the article, “The Undercover Parent” by Harlan Coben, he argues the idea of parents putting spyware on kids’ computer is a good idea to keep the child safe. Many American parents have no idea what happens in cyberspace; sex, bullying, and drugs. Parents are torn between protecting their child with spyware and allowing the child to have privacy. Coben uses his friends’ personal experiences to support his argument without leaving room for counterarguments. By using strong emotional appeals, weak qualifiers, and sugary word choice Coben creates a weak argument that lacks persuasion.
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.
The title of the essay is The Undercover Parents, which was written by Harlan Coben. The essay was published on the 16th of March, 2008. In the essay, Coben presents his main ideas and thoughts regarding the use of spyware by parents to monitor children. He says that installing a spyware on the computer used by children, especially those in the teenage years, can help parents track what actually their children view on computers. In the essay, the author says that while it is quite hard to follow up on children while they are away from home and this causes parents to be so worried, installing spyware on the computers in the house really helps. Coben says that the program allows parents to keep track of the children including the friends they have, websites they visit and messages they send. However, he reiterates by saying that this implies negligence on the part of the parent. He says, "Surrendering parental responsibility to a machine that allows the entire world access to your home borders on negligence." (para. 5, p.21).
Deontological theory is a “theory of duty” (book). This theory focuses on what is right. It focuses on the duties that we have for ourselves and for one another. Jermey Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, was the inventor of deontological. He believed that this theory was guided in the same direction as the principle of utility. However, today deontological theories shows contrast with utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, who is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher, saw deontology as something that contradicts utilitarianism. The utilitarian theories focus on consequences over what is right. They focus on the quality and quantity of happiness that an action brings. Kant emphasizes that we “are worthy of happiness only when we
Kant presents his followers with both categorical and hypothetical imperatives (Reitan). The hypothetical imperatives, often dubbed the imperfect duties, basically state, “If you want X, do Y (Reitan).” In other words, hypothetical imperatives are not obligatory of people, but encourage certain actions for certain results. Categorical imperatives say, “Do Y, no matter what you want (Reitan).” These perfect duties, as they are referred to as, are rules that we must follow without any acceptable exceptions (Degrazia, Mappes and Brand-Ballard). These perfect duties include the forbidding of killing innocent people, lying, breaking promises, becoming intoxicated, committing suicide, and masturbating (Horn). Kant ultimately believes that reason dictates what is right and wrong through the categorical imperative of Kantian Deontology, which has two formulations (Reitan). The first states, “Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time (consistently) will to be a universal law (of nature) (Reitan).” This is the philosophical equivalent of “treat others the way you want to be treated.” The second formulation, which could arguably provide a different
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
There are programs available to those parents who feel it is necessary to monitor their childs use of the Internet. Cybersitter can be purchased for around $39.95, and can help to regulate your web browser keeping your childs access to the world wide web restricted. There is even and option in which incoming and outgoing e-mails for inappropriate material.
These individuals feel that it is an invasion of the teenagers’ right to privacy and the development of their trustworthiness. Kay Mathieson states “only by giving children privacy will they come to see their thoughts as something that belongs to them – to which they have an exclusive right.” In the United States and according to the law, monitoring the internet usage of a minor does not break any laws and is a moral obligation of the parent. Trustworthiness is an important development of a child to learn in order to develop genuine relationships with others in the lifetime. “Not only does monitoring have the great potential to undermine the trust of the child in the parent, and thus to undermine trust in others more generally, it also has the potential to undermine the capacity of the child to be worth of trust” (Mathieson). If the parent has not already had conversations with the teenager about monitoring internet usage and the parent is not telling the child about the monitoring, there is already an issue with the development of trustworthiness in the teenager. There was already a failure of development of this skill before the internet or internet monitoring was introduced.
Kant invented the categorical imperative, which is a tool that can be used to understand whether certain maxims are rational, or not. Kant formulated the categorical imperative two different ways: the humanity formula and the universal formula. “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This is Kant universal formula, which one should use and think about before performing a certain action. It means that one should perform an action only if he or she believes that this particular action could be used as universal law. In other words only if he or she believes that we can leave safely in a world where everyone could repeat that same action. Dr. Arnold used the example of promises. If Tim makes promises to Ben but does not intend on keeping his promises. He should think about how the world will be if everyone makes promises that they don’t intend on keeping, after a certain time no one will ever believe promises