Analysis on Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will.
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
A system of rules organized an association of people to establish a society. These rules enhance the lives of people to get organized and progress. One of the rules is the rule of conduct which ought the people to do or ought not to do depends on the situation. These rules constitute a phenomenon of Morality. The philosophical study of morality is an ethics which are rational and systematic analysis of conduct that can be a source of benefit or harm to other people. The predominant focus of an ethics is based on the voluntary and moral choices of the people. In the past era, philosopher proposed many ethical theories. The ethical theory which fails to enable the user to make persuasive arguments in front of the diverse audience is a non-working
As a philosopher during the Enlightenment era, Immanuel Kant is considered to be one of the great major thinkers of all time. His emphasis on the moral life and reason is his overall philosophy on life. One of his quotes even describes his overall philosophy; “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” (Arrington 261) Kant’s views on “the moral law” are still applicable today, and his concept of “the categorical imperative” is influential as well.
Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals is one of his earliest works and is one of the most influential in the field of moral philosophy. In this work, Kant sets the stage and establishes the ground for future investigation by explaining setting and explaining the core concepts of the “supreme principle of morality” (Kant 1993)1. He presents his work in three sections, but only the first two will be focused on. Although it is not definitive, Kant attempts to work from ordinary moral knowledge to a supreme principle, and then attempts to test that principle in the second and third sections of the work.
As humans, we are all created equal however, are we obligated to act morally? Although each person may have different beliefs on the topic, everyone has their own methods of moral reasoning. According to Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and most philosophers, he believes that we are all obligated to act morally through duty-based ethics. With such a belief, we are obligated to act in accordance with a specific set of maxims regardless of the consequences. Kant developed one of the most influential moral theories that derived from human reason. Throughout the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets out to find a better understanding of morality developed from principles rather than experience. He clearly argues why we are obligated to act morally through the importance of duty, moral worth, and the categorical imperative.
John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who contributed greatly to the fields of social theory, political theory, as well as philosophy. Mill was a strong proponent of the ethical theory of utilitarianism, and in his work, titled Utilitarianism, he provides support for the theory, and also attempts to respond to and do away with misconceptions held on it. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the most important figures in modern philosophy. Kant has had a notable influence on a number of fields, such as ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. In his work Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant introduces a number ideas and concepts, such as Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives, as well as discussing duty. In both Mill and Kant’s ideas and philosophies focus on concepts that
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
In this paper, I will critique Kantian ethic’s failure to defend beings disputably labeled “irrational.” The concept of a rational being is a common motif throughout Immanuel Kant’s “Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.” These beings comprise the foundation of his entire argument. Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, it is crucial to further examine what is meant by “rational.” Kant offers three essential requirements that separate rational beings from their irrational counterparts; the ability to reason, a moral will, and autonomy (53, 49, 41.) Rational beings are those included in his ideal “kingdom of ends” (39.) He defines this kingdom as “a systematic union of rational beings through common objective law” (39.) Since Kant’s code of ethics only applies to those deemed rational, some fundamental questions remain ambiguous. Firstly, in what manner should Kant’s higher capacity beings interact with those “incapable” of reason? Could those who fail to meet the three requirements be abused or exploited? Would this be justified? Some may conclude that Kant has evaded these inquiries altogether.
Kant¡¯s Moral Theory
I think Kant¡¯s Moral theory is one complement to the Utilitarianism because one deficit of Utilitarianism is it is sometimes impossible to foresee the consequences, and Kant brought up that ¡° the consequences of our acts are not always in our control and things do not always turn out as we want¡±. However, he believed that we can control our motives, and the ¡°motive to do what is right¡± gives an act its moral worth.