Desire or feelings cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in our feelings. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from God. Kant's notion of morality arose from his notion of a moral law; a law applicable to all people at all times, that imposes absolute duties on us.
The categorical imperative is based on the single notion that one should act only on maxims that can reasonably and without contradiction be made a universal law. As such, it does not consider the details of circumstance and holds true universally, because it relies solely on a priori concepts. I will further explain Kant’s formulations of this imperative momentarily. Now that we have just seen the first type of imperative,... ... middle of paper ... ...aw. 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.
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.
Kant adds to this point by saying the laws we base our actions upon must be self-imposed. They cannot be imposed by outside sources because then, our actions would just be based on natural necessity; we would simply be reacting to external causes. To see how Kant’s statement translates into saying an autonomous will is bound by moral law, we must first understand what morality is, and how one achieves it. Kant believes that morality is an a priori concept, or one that is independent of any experiences of the world. Morality stems from the idea of the ‘good will’, which Kant argues is the only thing truly ‘good’ in the world.
To Kant, morality can never be based on experience; it is always a priori. Morality exsisted b... ... middle of paper ... ...real example. The categorical imperative is carried out for it's own sake and any example would be tainted. Kant even goes on to state that any "empirical evidence of a moral law is highly prejudice to the purity of the moral law" (43) Kant next introduces the idea of the "Kingdom of Ends" (50) Stated simply, humans are members of a kingdom that is governed by one law which encourages them to treat themselves and others as "ends in themselves" (50). In the kingdom everything either has value or dignity (51).
An Exposition of Kant’s, Arendt’s, and Mill’s Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy.
Therefore, from the perspective of categorical imperative and its content and logic, we can better understand Kant's moral thoughts. I. Categorical imperative and its testimony Categorical imperative is a basic concept in Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Yet, what does categorical imperative mean by Kant? In Kant's opinion, everything in nature works according to laws. Rational beings alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, which also means according to principles.
He argues that the moral law applies to us because of the very nature of our finite rational will. If this is true, then we must view ourselves as the authors of the moral law, and consequently reject any maxims inconsistent with the autonomous moral law. In nearly every other, non-moral system of laws governing humanity, the laws and their authority come from an external source. The only reason we obey such external authorities is some other interest, not any inherent value. For example, the state in which we live creates laws that are binding on us.
The moralities of principles according to Kant are the ones that make authority internal to oneself. These theories are actually found within oneself and acts as a voice of reason, it is not imposed upon one by God or by society. Furthermore, Kant believed that morality is in all actuality is a matter of rationality and reason in which the justification of moral principles are entirely autonomous. He defined this personal autonomy as the capability of realizing what is right and what is wrong through the use of reason. However, reason for Kant is objective and prescribes universal and necessary laws and duties.
According to Kant, morality has to be based on the Categorical Imperative, due to the need for morality to be in such a way that the person is commanded by it and cannot opt out of it based on the situation. The Categorical Imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances no matter the consequences. Indeed, it is not a command to perform specific actions yet a step-by-step procedure to evaluate if an action is morally correct. Albeit, the Categorical Imperative has four different formulations, Kant emphasized that each version is a different way of expressing the same rule. One can determine whether the motive of an action is morally correct if the motive can be turned into a universally applicable maxim.