The Categorical Imperative: A Philosophical Theory

Because a dignity is something with immeasurable, or intrinsic value (like morality), it would be impermissible for someone adhering to the ideals of a good will to harm one. A good will is a will that follows the moral law, and it probably goes without saying that impairing something morally priceless and invaluable would not be doing that. Premise 3: If humans have intrinsic value, then that which humans need to function has intrinsic value. As humans are, obviously, not self-sustainable creatures, by definition, they are dependent on other components to survive. In the event that humans were to be characterized as having intrinsic value, the fact of their dependence would still remain.

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.

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.

Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.

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. Kant’s thesis has strength in the fact that the universal law seems closely related to the golden rule, which is do on to others as you would have others do on to you. With a statement as such it is awfully arduous to not perform a moral action. The weakness still lies in the fact Kant takes little to no consideration to humans’ natural emotions and feelings. Leading a moral life does not have to be a melancholy life, one in which you are bound to an endless amount of duties that you can seek no joy in.

If the condition of control were to be true, then it would contradict many moral assessments we find natural to make, such as Kant 's notion of ethics which emphasizes that an act is morally right if and only if it is in accordance to duty and that it is founded on a good will. Needless to say, a Kantian would outright deny the importance of the condition of control because it contradicts their spectrum of how should morality be determined. Kant focuses on the importance of a good will, meaning that someone who has the volition to act morally is someone who is following reason and has the intentions to do what they consider to be right. Comparing this to Nagel 's condition of control would eventually contradict Kant 's notion of the principle of volition because according to constitutive luck, the way in which we decide our intentions or inclinations is not completely under our control. 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.

It is important to not only weigh the value of the action but also the mind of the individual preforming the act. If they are forced into doing an act that they genuine did not act upon then he or she should not be held responsible. Ultimately, although his conclusion to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities can be viable in some case, it does not manage to completely shadow the idea of morality state in the Principle and is thus rendered false.

I will begin to illustrate what Waldron means by such a right. Before we even look at the meaning of “a right to do wrong”, Waldron clarifies that he is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. “A right to do wrong” means that an action is morally wrong but it is an action that an individual has the moral right to do. It is suggested that an individual should not act in an immoral way but has the choice to do so. Waldron wishes to answer the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do wrong.

Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.

Not to return money, if put into a universal law, nobody ever returned the money, and everybody broke their promises, there would be no promises, and the act is not in accordance with duty. So the act of not returning the money has no moral worth and is morally wrong. There are two different types of imperatives, according to Kant, hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. ¡°an imperative is simply a form of statement that tells us to do something¡±. Hypothetical imperative is conditional and represents an action that is good and necessary as a means to further results.