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 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.
Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an instrument. To understand how he defines this test, we must first take a look at the foundation of his main principle, the Categorical Imperative. Kant’s way of determining morality of actions is quite different from other philosophers, and many find it extremely hard to grasp or implausible. The central concept of his basic test for morality found in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical imperative. “The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative”(Kant, 24).
When we rationally will some end and consequently will the means to that end, we impli... ... middle of paper ... ...ill that their maxim for that action should become a universal law, and if it’s true that rational agents ought to always treat all other finite rational beings as n end in themselves and never merely as a means, then it must be true that rational agents, as ends in themselves, create the universal moral law. Systems of heteronomous moral laws cannot apply to all finite rational beings because they necessarily create hypothetical, rather than categorical imperatives. In order for moral laws to apply to all finite rational beings in all circumstances, they must be in the form of categorical imperatives. Furthermore, they must result from the very nature of the finite rational will. Kant argues that together, his Formula of Universal Law, Formula of Humanity, and Formula of Autonomy constitute such a system, allowing for the exercise of the full capacity of reason.
Thus, for Kant, the human mind does not begin simply as a tabula rasa, as supposed by Locke, but must necessarily have an innate structure in order that we may understand the world. For Kant, this a priori structure is essential to philosophy. Kant argued that the simple empiricism of Hume and Berkeley inevitably leads to solipsistic idealism. In contrast, by uncovering the a priori structure of human understanding, as the necessary condition for conscious experience, Kant argued that he was able to avoid idealism, since the proof of the existence of an external world follows from this structure. However, some commentators have pointed out flaws in Kant's theory that demonstrate that he does not necessarily escape the charge of solipsism.
According to Kant deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to our selves. As Kant indicates in idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human being as ends in and of themselves instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension to our selves. It is based on the desires of a person in how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well.
Immanuel Kant's Theory Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) discussed many ethical systems and reasoning’s some were based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness 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.
When dealing with Kant, we must always ask ourselves these question’s before we decide to act: can I sensibly determine that everyone acts as I plan to act, and does my action respect the goals of other’s rather than my own reasons. Kant’s theory looks at the rightness or wrongness of these actions and relates them on not depending on such consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty or not. The Categorical Imperative in relation to Kant is that he believed that there was an utmost norm of morality and that the categorical imperative determines our moral duties. A maxim is a set rule or principle on which you follow when you act. An example could be that I make it my maxim to deposit an equal amount of money into my savings each
According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without any concerns ab... ... middle of paper ... ... In conclusion, Kant, Arendt, and Mill hold different moralities. The three philosophers all have different ways to analyze and perceive ethical principles. They all base their views on varying concepts of morality. Kant’s deontological ethics is grounded on concepts of duty, the categorical imperative, and good will.
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?