people seeds

692 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: critiques of kants metaphysics of morals

Flavia Neyra People Seeds Thomson’s “People Seeds” thought experiment illustrates a situation where we can imagine that people are like seeds drifting in the air like pollen. One of these seeds can simply drift into people’s houses when they open the window and take root in their carpets. If they don’t want any of these people seeds then they can easily fix their window by buying the best fine mesh to cover it. However, as it does happen, one window’s screen mesh is defective and a seed gets in. Now, does the person plant that develops in the house have the right to use the house? This question can be approached in many ways and have numerous answers. However, I will be discussing the way that Kant, an ethical philosopher, would approach such question by using his theory of categorical imperative. I will also explain the problem of the situation and my opposing view towards Kant’s responses. The situation above is describing the view of abortion. Thomson is using the idea of the mesh window as contraception. The situation mentions that people can buy the best mesh for their window to protect their house from the seeds. In the same sense, people buy the best contraception to prevent them from getting pregnant. However, nothing is guaranteed, so the seed ends up getting into the house by a defective mesh on the window. This also happens in life, when contraception fails and gets a woman pregnant. The question being proposed is “Does the plant that develops in the house have the right to use the house?” In other terms, “Does a fetus have the right to be in the mother’s womb or can a mother choose to not have the fetus?” Kant argues the idea of a categorical imperative, which all humans should choose good acts based on a univers... ... middle of paper ... ...erative is inconsistent. Categorical imperative determines what you should do regardless of the ends. Doing an act without an end is pointless. Everyone aims for end to make choices. For example, people make choices based on what makes them happy. Happiness is an end that people aim towards. Without this end, people would have no purpose do anything. Therefore, there must ends in order to make choices and not because we should do them as Kant theory states. Having a choice of an abortion is a decision many women make everyday. Kant’s categorical imperative is only one view to look upon this situation. By stating an unconditional should statement and passing the universal liability test determines if the act is good. According to Kant, the act of abortion would be immoral. However, I believe that Kant fails to explain the ends to why we should do the things we do.

Show More
Related

  • Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theory: The Philosophical Study Of Morality

    1964 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kantianism is named after a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived in 1724-1804. According to Kant, the only thing that is good is good will; moreover, the good will builds the whole structure of the society. Kantianism is based on the intent of the action or person’s intention which are the predominant attributes of the good will. The basic principle of Kantianism theory depicts the idea of universal truths. It explains that a moral rule must be universal. Also, it describes that people should be treated with respect. Moreover, it explains the credibility of an action why it is right or wrong and convinces the user with logical reasons. Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative, which describes a set up to explain, “What makes a moral rule appropriate?” One version of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for a person to use himself or another person uniquely as a means to an end. Most of the time it is easier to use the second version of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view. For example, in the case of Jean, misusing the responsibilities of someone else’s duty. It was wrong for Jean to treat the profession of the doctor as a means to an end. Jean deceived the profession of the doctors with the goal of getting benefit to save his nephew. It was wrong for jean to misuse his responsibilities rather than to think that he can find a way to look for a doctor. We can also look at this scenario using the first version of the Categorical Imperative. Jean wanted to save his nephew Pierre. A proposed moral rule might be, “Take a decision in his hands to save his nephew.” However, if everyone followed the same rule, it will diminish the sense of duty, responsibility, and the respect of the profession. If everyone will act the same way in this type of situation and try to misuse his or her professional responsibilities, then there will

    Read More

  • Patrick Lee And Robert P. George's The Wrong Of Abortion

    1019 Words  | 3 Pages

    Furthermore, Lee and George then dispute another argument, which they call “the evaluative version.” This arguments contends that a fetus becomes valuable and bearers of rights during a later time. Lee and George dispute various scenarios in this version. For example, Judith Thomson supported abortion by comparing the right to life with the right to vote. Lee and George attacks Thomson objection by stating

    Read More

  • Essay On Adelphia Scandal

    776 Words  | 2 Pages

    Take for example giving a performance report for a subpar employee. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you up front with them and tell them their performance is lacking and needs to improve? To follow the Categorical Imperative, you give them the poor report because it is the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or a decision can still be morally good as it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).

    Read More

  • Thomson Abortion Hypothetical Analysis

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this argument, seeds are contained within the pollen outside and the seeds can root into the carpets and floors to grow into human beings. The person living in this environment wants to have her windows open because she needs fresh air in her house; however, she runs the risk of getting the people-seeds inside the house. Even with the knowledge that the people seeds can get inside the house and potentially grow as people, she still wants to open the windows; instead of simply opening the windows, she puts a mesh screen that is supposed to block the seeds from entering into the house. If the seeds are being blocked, then she can live with the windows open in peace, but there is also a miniscule percentage that the mesh will not work and the people-seeds will enter into the house, implant, and grow into people. In the end of the scenario given by Thomson, the mesh does not completely block the people-seeds and they are able to enter through the door and grow into people. The person destroys the people seeds since she does not want to have them grow in her house in the first place. According to Thomson, it is morally permissible to destroy the people seeds because the person took every possible alternative used to avoid having the seeds flourish in the house. This case relates to cases where two people consent to intercourse and use contraception, but the contraception fails. Although this argument would make for a great case arguing for the morally permissibility of abortion, it does not work. The major flaw is the flaw of the survivability of a single human being. For example, with the argument posed by Thomson, the person decides to open a window. A human cannot survive without clean air, therefore, the windows/door of the house need to be open at some point in time, thus making the inevitable happen, which is allowing the people seeds to come into the house. In the real case it relates to, the two

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant's Arguements in The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”

    553 Words  | 2 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperatives Good Will Analysis

    798 Words  | 2 Pages

    The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.

    Read More

  • The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Kant’s View on Abortion Explained by Categorical Imperative

    567 Words  | 2 Pages

    Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy either because the baby is unwanted or the mother requires the abortion due to medical complications. With this issue the controversy lies in three moral groups of thought. First, the conservative view that believes that abortion defies moral law and/or should only be used to when medically necessary for the mother. The liberal view states that an abortion can be used regardless of the reason because the decision solely rests with the mother. Lastly, the moderate view believes that the act of aborting is justified to a wavering point. After review of the different positions on abortion and Kant’s ideals on morals, specifically categorical imperative, Kant’s view point on this controversial issue would be conservative or against abortion.

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Consequentialism Vs Abortion

    1141 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

  • Metaphysics of Morals

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    ... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.

    Read More

  • Three Formulations of the Categorical Imperative

    1530 Words  | 4 Pages

    In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.

    Read More

More about people seeds

Open Document