The Humanness of Hume and Kant's Moral Theories

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.

In this essay I will explain Kant's reasoning behind his statement that the only true good, without qualification, is the good will, and consequentially determine whether his idea of good varies from the Platonic ideal of goodness. In Kant's development of his theory he relied upon the faculty of human reason to demonstrate his hypotheses. He begins by inquiring as to the ultimate purpose of human reason. He considers for a moment that man's reason exists to bring happiness, however he quickly nullifies this assumption with a common sense judgment: We find that the more cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment. .

John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that, “[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness.

But to grant that rule-responsibility is socially essential does not grant that it is the essence of morality. QE is flawed as it reduces the topic of moral character to the topic of conscientiousness or rule-responsibility, but it gives no account of the role of the character as a whole in moral deliberation and it excludes questions of character that are not directly concerned with the resolution of problems. Taking into account the criticisms of modern ethical theory I have discussed, it is clearly evident that an ethical theory shaped in light of these criticisms would be very similar to virtue ethics, emphasizing character and centering around the question, "how should I live? ".

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.

Kant's duty to have no worldview is because it's his own way of thought in a realistic way. In a nutshell PowerPoint his theory is above the world view Idealism/ Realism, But in deeper thought, " Kant claims that ethics should not be dependent on a particular worldview, his “duty based ethical theory is rooted in logic and language, and is in line with an Idealistic perspective"(RAE). Simply put," the Good is that which is good for everyone. The Good is that which is universal"( In a nutshell). Kant also believed that "it's our duty to align our intentions with the good as identified by the application of the Categorical Imperative" ( Immanuel Kant).

Plato's Moral Psychology I argue that Plato's psychological theories are motivated by concerns he had about moral theory. In particular, Plato rejects the modern account of rationality as the maximization of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he adopted such an account, his theory of justice would be subject to criticisms which he holds are fatal to the contractarian theory of justice. While formulating a theory to remain within ethical constraints sometimes violates the canons of scientific theorizing, Plato avoids this mistake. The first serious account of justice Plato considers in the Republic is the contractarian account. (1) It holds that is always instrumentally rational for one to further her own interests and in that certain situations (exemplified by the prisoners dilemma) it is more rational to forego one's own interests (providing others do so also) than to behave in a straight-forwardly rational way.

Kant was definitely a perfect world philosopher who had good ideas and beliefs about how the world should work but they were just unrealistic expectations of what people should do. Kant thinks that all rational beings are instilled with good will therefore should strive to always do actions out of good will. Kant also explained that actions should be done out of duty and not inclination for them to be considered morally right because you should do things because they are right and not because its going to benefit us. Imperatives to Kant were a way to check what kind of decision a person was going to make. With all these concepts anyone can see that Kant had a good idea of what people should be like, however, it is just not rational to believe that everyone is going to stop and really think about every decision they make through.

Why Couldn't Kant Be A Utilitarian? ABSTRACT: In his essay "Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian? ", R. M. Hare tries to show that Kant's moral theory contains utilitarian elements and it can be properly asked if Kant could have been a utilitarian, though in fact he was not. I take seriously Hare's challenge to the standard view because I find his reading on the whole reasonable enough to lead to a consistent interpretation of Kant's moral philosophy. Still, I hardly believe that it is necessarily concluded from Hare's reading that Kant could have been a utilitarian.

Kant also believes that an action is right or wrong based solely on the reason by which it was performed. However, a Utilitarian, like John Mill, would reject Kant’s reasoning of originating good characters out of actions alone, and instead argue that if an action has bad consequences, then the action was morally wrong. Kant believes that an action has moral worth only if it is done out of respect for our moral code. He names this moral action a ‘duty.’ Kant also believes that in determining the moral worth of an action, we need to look at the maxim by which it was performed. So, we need to look at one’s reason for doing an action to determine if it is a duty.