How can Ethics Compel us to do Good? In Critique of Practical Reason, Immanuel Kant attempts to establish a valid basis for ethics. Specifically, he wants to develop an ethical system that has compelling power. He views the traditional, happiness-based ethics as insufficient because they lack compelling power, meaning that they do not have the power to curtail our actions.
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
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
In Elements of Pure Practical Reason Book, I, Immanuel Kant, a prominent late Enlightenment Era German philosopher discusses his most famous ethical theory, the “Categorical Imperative.” The “Categorical Imperative” is a proposed universal law in stating all humans are forbidden from certain actions regardless of consequences. Although this is the general definition of this ethical theory, the Categorical Imperative” exists in two above formulations, A strict interpretation of Categorical Imperative and a more liberal interpretation. This Kantian moral theory shapes almost all of Immanuel Kant’s work on morality and ethics, particularly his “a priori principle” on human rights. Although Kant ultimately developed political theory, many of his views are often seen as bizarre or even controversial at times, particularly in regards his “a priori principles” of the people and the Categorical Imperative itself. By further analysis of the categorical imperatives and critiques, objections and concurring opinions, and the theory’s connections with the “a priori principles,” Kantian philosophy implication as well as critic’s views on the philosophy will be readily apparent.
ABSTRACT: In his essay "Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian?", R. M. Hare tries to show that Kant's moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked if Kant could have been a utilitarian, though in fact he was not. I take seriously Hare's challenge to the standard view because I find his reading on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kant's moral philosophy. Still, I hardly believe that it is necessarily concluded from Hare's reading that Kant could have been a utilitarian. In this paper, I will first show that Hare's interpretation of 'treating a person as an end' as treating a person's ends as our own is reasonable, and so is his reading of 'willing our maxim as a universal law' and 'duties to oneself,' which is based on that interpretation. Then I will argue that Kant couldn't be a utilitarian despite the apparently utilitarian elements in his theory because caring about others' ends (of which happiness is the sum) is a duty. This is so, in Kant's view, not because happiness is valuable in itself, but because it is the sum of those ends set freely by each rational human being who is valuable in itself, that is, an end in itself.
Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
Kant’s moral theories are extremely rationally based, and also based on having a motive to act. This motive for Kant often comes from having an obligation to duty. He applies his theories to duty as duty is the primary source of good by itself, making only acts that come from duty the truly moral ones. He presents a
Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is one of his earliest works and is one of the most influential in the field of moral philosophy. In this work, Kant sets the stage and establishes the ground for future investigation by explaining setting and explaining the core concepts of the “supreme principle of morality” (Kant 1993)1. He presents his work in three sections, but only the first two will be focused on. Although it is not definitive, Kant attempts to work from ordinary moral knowledge to a supreme principle, and then attempts to test that principle in the second and third sections of the work.
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.
When we find ourselves conflicted in a difficult decision-making process, a Kantian would advise us to evaluate the outcomes of our decisions and think whether we would want to have such actions made acceptable universally. If we cannot imagine living in a world where innocent individuals, regardless of their status, meet death to pay for the crime of another, then we ought not to take such actions against an innocent individual. Otherwise, the result would only lead to a world, where the true criminals roam free while many innocent lives are jailed or executed. This effect could al...