Kant believed that following ones duty was not measurable by the end means, yet it “is good only through its willing”. This meant that it is good only if it is good in itself. He believes under the categorical imperative, one must only act upon the maxim if it is willable under the universal law. And these maxims must be contradiction free and purposeful to be considered moral. Kant believed that we as hum... ... middle of paper ... ... feel beneath you to uplift ones self.
The moral debates continued to see good as merely that which gives happiness or pleasure. "…it was assumed that what we ought to do is always a function of what it would be good to bring about: action can only be right because it produces good (J.B. Schneewind 'Modern Moral Philosophy'). It was the breaking away from this idea that was perhaps the most important aspect of the works of both Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and David Hume (1711-1776). Hume's moral theory arose out of his belief that reason alone can never cause action. Desire or feelings cause action.
Actions that lead to harmful consequences and provoke culpability and shame are considered immoral. While actions that lead to beneficial consequences and provoke happiness and satisfaction are considered morally correct. In the explanation of ethics, however, one is undertaken by reason. Philosophers, such as Pythagoras of Samos, state that all things in the universe have an explanation through reason. Nonetheless, one cannot answer moral dilemmas through reason as the only way of knowing.
According to virtue ethicists, being virtuous is regarded as being ethical because it is a reflection of the individual traits of fairness and striving towards accomplishment of human potential. Given that the nature of virtue ethics makes it relatively impossible to effectively evaluate the morality of people’s actions, it is still used as an argument to refute the possibility
The categorical imperative on the other hand is unconditioned and thus entirely a priori. It refers to actions that are not dependent on anything but are necessary in and of itself. We can only achieve good will and thus morality by isolating our motives and desires and acting out of the sake of duty. To aid... ... middle of paper ... ...t freedom is the basis of a rational being’s will. Since we know that the universal principle of morality is derived from a rational being’s will due to the Formula of Autonomy, we can therefore conclude freedom is the basis for the universal principle of morality.
Since “all action is for the sake of some end”, actions and their consequences are inseparable. The doctrine holds that the consequences of actions outweigh in significance the nature of the actions. Therefore, no action is considered wrong according to Utilitarianism as long as it maximizes happiness, even if the action is morally wrong in its nature. The doctrine appears to encourage actions that contradict common sense morality, the body of moral rules accepted by society. This impression raises an objection to Utilitarianism saying it promotes unjust, evil actions.
For someone who believes in psychological egoism, i t is difficult to find an action that would be acknowledged as purely altruistic. In practice, altruism, is the performance of duties to others with no view to any sort of personal... ... middle of paper ... ... false there is no reason to rule out the potential nonegoistic behavior. "If Hobbesians qualify their position to embrace predominant psychological egoism-the theory that human nature causes us to be heavily biased toward our own self-interest over that of others' interest-then we need not of necessity become ethical egoists" (Pojman 94). In conclusion, it is apparent that universal ethical egoism has many arguments. Moreover, it is clear that this theory tends toward solipsism, a person's view that only he or she exists, and the omission of many of the deepest human values, such as love and deep friendship.
Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973. 16). Kant’s formalism is straight forward, basically in simple terms; would you like it if someone did that to you? No? Then that action is morally wrong.
Ayn Rand, Aristotle, and Selfishness Selfishness is an act that humans innately have implanted within them. Ayn Rand being a rational egoist had many moral beliefs, one being especially about selfishness. She believed that: “Self-interest, properly understood, is the standard of morality and selflessness is the deepest immorality.”( Ayn Rand 279) This basically emphasizes that you should see oneself, as an end to oneself. A person’s own life and happiness are their highest values, and that they don’t exist as servants or slaves to the interests of others. In the same way, others as well don’t exist as servants or slaves to a person’s own interests.
He also goes into depth about Autonomy vs. Heteronomy, which is about making a choice as a ends and not a means. Autonomy means making a choice as an end in and of itself and not a mean, this is when one differentiates between the act and the consequence. Heteronomy means acting according to an external determination and this type of reasoning for an action makes it immoral. Kant does not care about the consequence, the only thing that matters and the only way an act can be rendered moral is the persons motive of duty to a universal rational principle when the specific act is being perused. Kant also emphasizes that as humans we must value human dignity, we must treat other as an end and not as a