Immanuel Kant suggests that actions are preformed out of either inclination or reason. Inclination being desires, feelings, and so on down the line of subjectivity, requiring only seemingly action pertaining to “self-love”. Or actions are preformed out of reason, including objective reasoning’s such as duty, goodwill, and respect. This in accordance with reason, it seems, one must act when the action is “right”, stressing that these actions are universal in nature. Kant suggests that one can tell if an action is “good” or moral by specifically focusing on motives rather than outcomes.
He states there are two imperatives by which to judge an action. The categorical imperative is stated throughout the text, notably in section 2, “ Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law (p30)”. In short, one must act according to objective behaviours. The second is the hypothetical imperative, “… an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual”. Therefore the motive is subjective as it is adhering to inclinations of achieving a specific outcome.
The flaw I find with this train of thought comes in the form of analysis of motives, how can one truly “know” the motives of an action? Kant does address this at the beginning of section two, “We like to flatter ourselves with the false claim to a more noble motive; but in face we can, even by the strictest examination, completely plumb the depths of the secret incentives of our actions (19)” He goes on to say furthermore that one must be a “cool observer” and not take into consideration personal experience (p20). Having reason said to be universal, this means subjective inclinations are not needed to examine actions because ...
... middle of paper ...
...a poor example for the universality of Kant’s theories due to the fact murder is wrong yet countries are constantly going to war. Regardless he truly believes that an individual could have universally moral actions and act in accordance with reason if their maxim is that of the intention to be moral.
Though I may not agree with Kant’s theories as a whole, I can appreciate his willingness to make reason a universal quality in people as well as rising the so-called bar of what is considered moral. Religious undertones and subjective, as I see it racist, comments slightly discredit his objective understanding of morality I do understand the time in which it was written. Immanuel Kant’s views allowed for a strict moral code to form, not dismissing inclinations but rather placing them in their own category. Separating feelings from logic isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
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...
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
Kant argues that as long as there is no excess of pleasure involved in the completion of an action and it remains clear that the action is done from duty, then pleasure can be involved in the completion of a virtuous action. Similarly, Aristotle believes that pleasure can be involved in the completion of virtuous actions; however, he claims that it can be the sole motivator of an action, whereas for Kant this is simply not true. Furthermore, Kant claims that even if the action is from duty the agent's intent must be determined by the categorical imperative rather than by inclination, otherwise the individual does not have a good will and the action does not consist of any moral worth. Both Kant and Aristotle argue that the intent of an action is critical in determining whether an action is truly virtuous or not as it is not possible for an outsider to determine an individual's underlying motive for an action. It may seem that Kant and Aristotle's theories regarding the source of virtuous actions greatly differ from one another at first glance, but upon further examination it becomes evident that there are more similarities than there are differences between the theories of these two philosophers on the source of virtuous
The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.
After all, Kant’s theories rely on his depiction of humans as being rational beings that possess a will and are both influenced by emotions and inclinations. With reason, one is able to discover the principles provided by necessary, obligatory, and universal moral laws “a priori,” with which it is one’s duty to act out of reverence for. Yet, while reason determines the will, or the “power of determining oneself to action,” the inclinations may lead one to falter. Thus, it is when a person acts from their duty as a result of a good will, as my mother does when she donates to charity, that they perform moral acts. When one fails to have the proper action or motivation, like when my roommates stole silverware, one’s will has been influenced by another inclination besides duty. Consequently, all humans possess the same rational capacity and principles of law and duty, but it is simply the effect of inclinations and emotions on the will that creates
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.
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. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
Furthermore, Kant uses the phrase moral worth which he defined as a special value an action has that only deserves credit when it is done from the motive of duty, that is, when someone does an action because it is done from the motive of d...
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Kant believed that morality has to be something free and freely controlled by the person taking the moral action excluding consequences because consequences are not controllable. Morality is freely chosen and legislated universal law that any rational being could construct and all rational beings who want to be moral do