Google defines Categorical Imperative as “(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person 's inclination or purpose.” (Google) Thus, there is no middle ground on morals nor is there ever a situation to where one should commit a moral wrong doing. Immanuel Kant had strong views regarding Categorical Imperative and believed that universal law applies to all. He also believes there cannot be any exceptions to this rule, or it becomes right for all to live by the exception. Although Kant presents a strong argument on the topic of lying, he overlooks key elements that vastly flaw his thinking.
Many philosophers throughout time have had varying thoughts on what morals and their rules should be. A German philosopher, Immanuel Kant however, had somewhat intense views especially in regard to lying. He created four specific
…show more content…
Kant viewed lying as a moral atrocity and there were never any reasons to lie. In fact, Kant believed “ that lying under any circumstances is “the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being.”” (Rachels 2016 p139) The second most important was Kent’s rule is based on no exceptions. In Kent’s eye’s if we accept lying even as an exception, we then embrace it as natural law and conclude lying is okay for any and all reasons. If people accepted lying as natural law, then no one would take anyone’s word seriously, thus creating a cycle of disorder throughout society and the cycle in which society operates.
Kant largely focused on Categorical Imperative and had said “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant saw the later as somewhat of a moral compass. Kant suggested to people if they were unsure if something was moral or not, to ask themselves what rule they would be following if they did, and they could then determine their
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 ...
Using Kantian philosophy a lie is always immoral and wrong, no matter what the situation is. Kantian ethics establishes the idea that good will be based on the action itself rather than outcome or any inclination one may have to perform an act could be good will.
The very existence of an objective categorical imperative mandates the first maxim of Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature” (9; sec. 2). Thus, we have duties not to do anything that would contradict itself if it became a universal law of nature. For example, we make promises with the intent to break them because if everyone were to do that then nobody could trust a promise, so the concept of a promise would become meaningless, so a person could not make a promise with the intent to break it. That is a contradiction, so we ought not make promises with the intent to break them (Kant 10; sec. 2).
Categorical imperative is a basic concept in Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Yet, what does categorical imperative mean by Kant? In Kant's opinion, everything in nature works according to laws. Rational beings alone have the faculty of acting according to the conception of laws, which also means according to principles. In other words, the conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative. Kant divided imperatives into hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represented the practical necessity of a possible action as means for attaining something else that one wants (or possibly want). The categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as necessary in itself, without reference to another end” (Kant 228). By saying these, Kant tells us...
Kant, Immanuel. 1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns, 3rd Edition. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
Why Lying is Okay (in Certain Situations) Immanuel Kant, a philosopher known for his contributions in deontology. He believes that humans have a perfect duty to not lie, however there are reasons that show that sometimes we have to lie. Therefore, it is my belief that Kant’s deontological ethics, saying that we have a perfect duty not to lie, is false.
Kant believed that one should never lie because one will never be able to know what the unintended consequences are of said lie. However, Machiavelli believed that it was sometimes necessary to lie because it could strengthen the effect that a ruler has over his people. Lying or not lying has a very large impact on what type of a ruler that a person will be. A lying ruler will have the potential to be a much more powerful ruler because of the deceit that he has accomplished, but he also has a much higher potential to get overthrown if his lies are found out. Kant’s ruler may be much more trust worthy, but there is only so much that a ruler that does as he sees best without
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher during the 18th century who attacked topics such as morality and justice. He developed his ideas about morality separated against one’s beliefs, mostly due to religion having different variables in which one turns to when looking for an answer. He stated that one should follow categorical imperatives due to the fact that they are rules that everyone must abide by, regardless of what we, as individuals, desire.
It has to be applied universally and it’s the formula of humanity. By giving false promise is an example of violating this moral law because if someone lies to get out of a life or death situation some may think that’s right but others may believe that lying can lead to greater consequences in the future. This demonstrates that lying can never be a universal law because if everyone gave false promises, there wouldn’t be a thing such as a promise. The goodness of a person cannot stem from acting on impulse or natural inclination. Kant supposes the act of a person who overcomes a lack of sympathy for other people out of respect for duty has moral worth, whereas the act of a person who naturally takes pleasure in spreading joy does not. Kant articulates that in this statement, “That it is an estimation of the worth which far outweighs all worth of what is recommended by inclination, and that the necessity of acting from pure respect for the practical law is what is what constitutes duty.” (Kant, 120). Overall Kant believes that a person 's moral worth is therefore greater if their will doesn’t come from a
Immanuel Kant takes an absolutist position on the subject of lying. Kant argues that "truthfulness is a duty which no circumstances can put aside" no matter the situation (Bok, 4). Kant believes that this duty upholds whether or not someone's life is on the line. Nonetheless, Kant is wrong for a different source validates that lying is sometimes okay. For instance, moral philosopher and ethic columnist, Randy Cohen, is "a big fan of lying" (NBC News, 9). Cohen claims that lying is justified and "sometimes a moral duty" (par, 10). Cohen believes lying is very important and even cased that aren't as serious sometimes call for lies. Another source also emphasizes that lying is sometimes okay. Brad Blanton states in an interview that he realizes that you "shouldn't manipulate the truth except for rare time" (Ballinger, 11). Blanton points out by telling lies, you're unnecessarily complicating your life but sometimes it is okay if you are protecting someone from possible death. Thus, lying is very important when protecting someone from harm although some people tend to
He states that in no case should you lie (Bennett 2). What Kant focuses on is deontology, this focuses on duty-based ethics. What duty-based ethics consists of is, doing what you should do for the right reasons, your moral obligations (Bennett 2). Sometimes people will do something they know is right to do but, for the wrong reasons. Someone may save someone’s life because they know they will get money out of it while they should be doing it to save that person with or without a reward. Kant believes that lying is wrong and immoral for anyone in any case, no excuses. Kant believes in a good will (Bennett 5). He believes that happiness cannot be achieved through a bad will. A good will must consist of truthfulness, doing the right thing and doing it because you care to help. Kant believes that along with having a good will, you should be morally good. Being “morally good” has to do with following the moral law. Under any circumstance, a person should never corrupt the moral law (Bennett 2). Everyone should live their life knowing and living by this moral law, never making mistakes and always making the right decisions for the right reasons. With the scenario given, telling a small lie to a friend, Kant believes that lying is against the moral law. Bentham wanted to optimize happiness, in that case lying was the answer. Whereas, Kant says that people deserve more than that, each person deserves to know the truth and should
The lying promise is when you lie in order to satisfy a need, for example to say that you need money and you will pay someone back but you clearly know that you are unable to pay that person back. Kant believes that the lying promise is wrong because you should never act unless you are universalizing your maxim. When you tell a lying promise you are making exceptions for yourself. But in accordance to the universal law theory, if you are expecting others to keep a promise then you must do so as well; meaning every maxim you act upon must be a maxim that each person would always act on as well. If you are lying to get something, you must assume that everyone is also lying to meet the same ends. Therefore no lie can be universalized regardless of how good the purpose of the lie is. Even if one could universalize a lie with the intent of a good
From a Kantian perspective, we look at the act in itself. In Kantian theory, the categorical imperative is a logical test that encompasses three formulations, but I will only discuss one. The consequence of using a person to benefit another is that we cause non-malfeasance to a healthy person to benefit an ill person (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 363). This act violates the principle respect for persons of the second means as an end formulation of the categorical imperative. In this formulation, we are to act by treating humans as an end, and not as a means for our purposes only, because each rational being has equal moral worth and dignity (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 20). Justice, a kantian value claims we do not sacrifice some to benefit
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.
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is defined by Kant to "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Good moral actions are those of which are motivated by maxims which can be consistently willed that it’s generalized form be a universal law of nature. These maxims are otherwise known as universal maxims. Maxims can then be put through the Categorical Imerative test to determine their universalisability and thus the premissability of the maxim. To test a maxim we must ask ourselves whether we can consistently will for a maxim to be obeyed by everyone all the time....