Kant's Moral Principles

On the other hand and in contrast, “a priori” concepts are ideas we reach as an end point of reasoning prior to or apart from any experience of how things occur in the world. Kant then claims that moral actions are supposed done for the reason of morality alone. This train of thought leads to the conclusion that an understanding of morality must be based on “a priori” concepts of reason. Truly moral ideas are then universally valid if and only if they are based on “a priori” concepts. From this idea of “a priori” concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the notion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified good is the “good will”, even if its efforts bring about a not necessarily good result.

Hypothetical imperatives are actions that look for the best means to a goal, however, the goal might not necessarily be an end in itself. On the other hand, the categorical imperative is an objectively necessary means to an end in itself, and the action to obtain the end, must have moral worth. If we as rational agents, have any morality at all Kant says, it takes the form of rational, categorical imperatives (commands of reason) and is found a priori excluding all interests and desires. These commands of reason are proven by the Universal Law Formula, which when applied, is a method for determining the morality of actions. How is this formula applied though?

Morality is central to all rational beings, whereby a moral action is one determined by reason, rather than our personal desires as suggested by Kant (1785) in contrast to Hume. (1738). Furthermore, Kant suggests that an action is moral only on account of its being reasoned, therefore the moral worth of an action is determined by its motives and not by its consequences. Exploring the works of Hume (1738) and Kant(1785) on morality and ethics, we will ask the question whether we should do what is morally right, even when you could profit by doing something wrong, and furthermore, we shall discuss morality as a type of game, yet something you cannot opt out of, as something Foot describes as 'inescapable'. (Foot 1972: 311).

Kant also... ... middle of paper ... ...r act of duty needs to be performed in the current circumstance, to call the judgment moral. It is logical to understand the inconsistencies and rash effects of making an emotional or instinctual decision. Kant is also very clear when he distinguishes that even good, considerably noble actions may not be in fact moral, as well as actions that are good but with ill or wrong intentions may not be moral as well, because of the absence of the consideration of one’s duty in the decision-making process. Kant provides a very specific and consistent theory of morality, as well as providing arguments for every kind of situation presented to him. He finds no value in complexity, which is why it is easier for me to understand the simple, concise, and rational thought-process behind Kant and his theory.

Immanuel Kant's Theory Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) discussed many ethical systems and reasoning’s some were based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness 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.

It is our ability to make our own choices and be rational with the intention of creating good will. A person’s moral worth cannot determined by other people and their thoughts. It is our own rational thinking that determines our own result. Above all, it is the recognition of duty itself that must drive our actions. Our own reasons give us our own duties so that we can live up to the Kantian standards and fulfill our duty as being a rational, successful human

Kant rewrites this concept of universalizing maxims to determine duty in a second formulation that, while tests actions differently, he believes leads to the same moral conclusions. The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is to “act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.” This principle is meant to label behaviors that use humanity merely as a means to ones own ends as immoral. That is not to say that using people as a means is always wrong, just that their humanity must be simultaneously recognized as an end. In the example maxim “I will purposefully make empty promises to benefit my own well being,” that was used above, this action remains impermissible in terms of the second formulation. Works Cited http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims that can be universalized. The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself. Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.

Then that action is morally wrong. According to Kant, some problems with consequentialism, he believes if we are incline to do what we feel is good trying to produce good consequences then this act is not morally responsible. People differ in what they feel are good consequences therefore we can never truly know and achieve agreement if this action is morally sound. Because Kant does not believe that ethics is based on a desire, need or emotions but is about what’s is right and doing one’s duty (Mizzoni, 2010.

Immanuel Kant developed a moral theory on the sole perspective of a person’s motive or intent of their action. Kant does not believe that the consequences and outcomes of a person’s action define how morally right it is. He focuses only on the reasoning and puts these intentions into a duty and good will definition. The studying and emphasis on morality being based on duty is why we call Kant’s theory deontological. When a person does an action out of duty, it is because the duty is something a person is ought to do, deeming the action to be morally worthy.