Thus, this would deny the capacities of a good will to act in accordance with duty because of numerous psychological factors that may influence the way we define what is right or wrong. Kant clearly stated that good or bad fortune should never influence our moral judgements since the good will is a good in itself which is not influenced by an unfortunate fate and is much higher than the sums of all the inclinations that might have led to it (Kant 393). By this sense, the condition of control proposes no relevance in terms of Kantian ethics because he would claim that it would be incoherent to base all morality into mere luck. Nagel criticized this view by saying that it does not reconsider the possibilities of involuntary acts of people that may lead to unjust moral assessments. Nagel continued by arguing that different states of character that are determined by constitute luck would be directly blamed in accordance to Kantian ethics because they condemn such qualities that are most
In Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant lays out three propositions about duty. The first is the will is a morally good action if it is done in accordance from duty, as opposed to an action done in accordance with duty. The second proposition is that actions are judged by the "maxim" or principle that was the motivation behind the action. If someone undertakes an action with the only motivation being that of a sense of duty, they are followin... ... middle of paper ... ...viously that you will be more probable to engage and look to engage in more actions that will give you this appeal and instant gratification. This is not an ideal situation because placing a slight neglect to a duty or obligation that you might not find appeal in defeats the purpose of completing all of the obligations set for us to go through with.
If the world did not have goodwill, then one may argue that no good can exist. Because people would not be willing to do good things unless for their own purposes. Harrison claims that,“A Kantian follower would say that the maxims are important because it gives us all a foundation for the differences between being morally good or bad”. If one can do an action in some sort that can be put into a universal maxim. Therefore, you are acting ethically.
Plato's Moral Psychology I argue that Plato's psychological theories are motivated by concerns he had about moral theory. In particular, Plato rejects the modern account of rationality as the maximization of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he adopted such an account, his theory of justice would be subject to criticisms which he holds are fatal to the contractarian theory of justice. While formulating a theory to remain within ethical constraints sometimes violates the canons of scientific theorizing, Plato avoids this mistake. The first serious account of justice Plato considers in the Republic is the contractarian account. (1) It holds that is always instrumentally rational for one to further her own interests and in that certain situations (exemplified by the prisoners dilemma) it is more rational to forego one's own interests (providing others do so also) than to behave in a straight-forwardly rational way.
However, formulating the concept and proving its validity a... ... middle of paper ... ...-than reliable conclusion to his own opinions on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. Last in his argument he reject the presence of freewill. Freewill is a powerful internal idea that can prove to lead us as individuals in different direction. And when we are forced into doing an action that we cannot otherwise choose differently I believe that a person should not be morally held responsible to that said action. It is important to not only weigh the value of the action but also the mind of the individual preforming the act.
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.
One of Nagel’s most problematic faults in this concept, however, is the removal of self-responsibility. If we are only morally responsible for the outcomes of our actions and our outcomes are morally dictated by external factors, than how can we ever be responsible for anything? Thomas Nagel’s concepts are as freeing as they are disabling. The outcome of outcome based luck is this: it explains subjective ethical issues while it poses grander ethical problems in its replacement. Bibliography Kant, Immanuel.
This is not the point of Kant’s theory however, because he does not look at consequences for determining moral law, but rather at maxims. In order to determine what may produce more or less harm, it is true we would need to know the consequences of our actions. But, sometimes we cannot be sure of our consequences, and thus when we look at our intentions we can know if we are acting fairly (without deception or coercion) and decide on an action that would be moral based on a maxim of good will. O’Neil does point out that it is possible for a society to endure more pain in effort to protect individuals from being used as a mere means, yet they are doing so in a way to be the most fair, and therefore their actions can still be applied to the theme of giving everyone a fair value in life
However, their reasons are parallel to each other. Mill argues that actions have to be a focus on the concept of utility, since actions might be morally wrong and still be part of maximizing happiness. In Kant 's perspective, people have to do what is good based on their duty to the general public and not because it is morally right. Kant also believes that people’s rights are not to be disobeyed for the benefit of everyone. Mill would disagree with this theory since Utilitarianism accepts the concept to violate others rights if the outcome brings general happiness.
For Nagel, moral luck is defined as an instance in which a significant aspect of what someone does is dependent on factors outside of his control, yet we still treat him as the primary object of moral judgment. Nagel’s theory is that moral judgment erodes as a result of the ordinary idea of moral assessment, and without altering moral assessment based on the influence of moral luck, moral judgment necessarily dissolves. Nagel discusses four types of moral luck, which I would like to describe before describing various examples and implementations of these types of luck, and responses for them. First, Nagel discusses constitutive luck, or luck in the kind of person you are. That is, your particular charact... ... middle of paper ... ...essed for those decisions.