The freedom which Kant is talking about, is not only a negative freedom consisting in the absence of constraint by empirical causes, it is also a positive freedom which consists in the ability to make acts of will in accordance with the moral law, for no other reason than that they are in accordance with it. Freedom, in this sense, corresponds to Autonomy of the will and its absence ( any situation in which the will is determined by external causes ) is called Heteronomy. In obeying the moral law for the sake of the law alone, the will is autonomous because it is obeying a law which it imposes on itself. ... ... middle of paper ... ...e person, as Reason, as belonging to the intellectual world, is not affected by the laws of Determinism: he is free. This is Kant's proof of Freedom.
Metaphysical libertarianism, opposed to political libertarianism, is concerned with whether or not we are actually free as beings. This is what I will be looking at. Libertarianism is the belief that free will does exist and so we can be held morally responsible for our actions. Contrasting to hard determinism, it rejects the idea that our actions are predetermined by causes outside our control and that we are not morally responsible. Libertarians are similar to hard determinists, however, in the sense that they both agree that free will is incompatible with determinism.
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.
To what degree is a rational agent allowed to pursue his own goals or to choose one action over another? Both Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill answer the question of what makes a person free. Two different conceptions of individual freedom and autonomy are present by them and for this reason these philosopher differ on why it is that freedom and self-governance should be valued. In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant puts forward a normative conception of freedom and autonomy where by one has the capacity to deliberate and give himself laws. It is based on this claim that he makes his argument that autonomy should be valued because it is the sole principle of our moral law.
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.
Freedom according to Kant is will independent from foreign will and therefore reason should guide to individual principles independent of outside influences. Still everything relates back to an attempt to achieve a high morality, however for Luther this idea goes completely against spiritual righteousness, for him we are seemingly free through our spiritual righteousness and moral acts which are determined by God and he alone.
However, reason for Kant is objective and prescribes universal and necessary laws and duties. It is the authority of reason that justifies moral principles. According to Kant, what makes a good person is a good will in which decisions are fully determined by moral demands or as he often refers to this, by the Moral Law. Humans see this law as somewhat of a constraint on their desires, which is why a will that is decided by the Moral Law is motivated by the thought of duty. Despite being good, a divine will would in actuality not be morally good due to the fact that it would be motivated by thoughts of duty.
Therefore, actions are only moral if the action could be described as a universal law, known as a categorical imperative. A maxim according to Kant is to act in a way that we would will the action to be a universal law, as opposed to the hypothetical imperative which demands that we act to achieve a certain ends. (Kant in Signer 1994). Therefore, we to act morally good, we sho... ... middle of paper ... ...nature and is a game we play, yet it has its own rules that we must abide by if we are to exist in a society. So why do what's morally right?
According to formula two of Kant’s argument, good will is guided by reason. We should follow our own good will in order to gain talents to then help others. Our own good will cannot come from a gut feeling, we should consider our own obligations that Kant has set for us in order to reach our own happiness. We should act to use humanity by not using other people in order to get their means because that is immortal. It is our ability to make our own choices and be rational with the intention of creating good will.
1. Introduction According to Immanuel Kant the driving force behind our actions should be dictated by what is inherently good as sole consideration and not be based upon the effects of what such actions may produce such as the case in the consequentialist theory of cause. In this essay Kant’s ethical non-consequentialist theory will be briefly investigated and a comparison drawn between the two different theories in order to establish merit in employment thereof in practice. 2. Kantian Morality Central to Kant’s morality theory is his claim that: “It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will” (Cottingham, 2008: 507).