Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant's ideas about duty
Kant theory of moral duty
Kant's ideas about duty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant's ideas about duty
Immanuel Kant is a firm believer in the ideology that morality is solely based on duty and reason alone. This simply way of thinking is known as a deontological moral theory, which states that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our [mankind’s] duty” (“Kantian Ethics”). Based on his theory and throughout a significant number of his writings, Kant argues that it is not okay to lie. If Kant’s theory is correct, then no one could ever lie, not even to protect a friend from serious harm. However, it is obvious that the practical function of morality would allow an individual to lie in order to protect someone’s life from malevolent encounters. Thus, Kant’s ideology is false in
Many proponents of Kant claim that the categorical imperative helps to alleviate cases of conforming to duty and advocates for doing things for the sake of moral obligation. While proponents may be correct in deciphering the meaning of the imperative, they do not take into account its practical application. For example, Kant and his advocates claim that lying cannot be willed because the categorical imperative commands that all actions must be able to be willed universally and treat individuals as ends. This logic may be deemed appropriate in ideal and rational situations, but Kant’s moral philosophies begin to lose validity when the circumstances change and become uncertain. This loss of validity is clearly illustrated by Swiss philosopher Benjamin Constant who challenges Kant’s logic on the duty of always telling the truth. Constant states the following:
The moral principle that it is one’s duty to speak the truth…would make society impossible. We have the proof of this in the very direct consequences which have been drawn from this principle by a German philosopher [Kant], who goes so far as to affirm that to tell a falsehood to a murderer who ask[s] us whether our friend, of whom he was in pursuit, had not taken refuge in our house, would be a crime (qtd in
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
In other words, Kant’s deontological ethics acknowledges that actions and their outcomes are independent things (Shakil). The primary focus of deontologists is that the moral intentions or the moral duties are more important than the consequences. As humans have an ability to make rational decisions, deontologists argue that people have to perform duties that are morally correct and must not be influenced to perform them based on what we gain from its consequences. Kant, further theorizes, that the moral worth of an action is determined by the human will and that people have to perform moral duties that encourage good will. Although there are several well-known deontologists, Kant is generally considered as the father of deontology as he further developed this ideology with his concept of categorical
Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
Kant formulates several notions of what the categorical imperative must be and sometimes seems to confuse how many definitions he has suggested. But it seems to be clear that the Formulas I and III carry more importance in developing our subjective maxims for action than the other three Formulas. While these other three formulas provide additional considerations for our formulation of subjective principles, they are secondary to the Formulas I and III.
He universalizes this by saying that if one person lies then everyone lies. Kant says “lying is throwing away and, as it were, the obliteration of ones dignity as a human being” (Kant, 91). Kant then provides us with many strong examples on why he believes lying is unethical. Kant explains the two different kinds of lies, internal and external. Internal lies are worse because man convinces himself that a lie cannot harm anything and can possibly be useful (92). If one does not have a doubt about lying it can be dangerous. Kant says the only fear of man with an incentive to lie is the fear of punishment (92). If lying were to become a universal law the society would be in harm because no one could trust each other and life as a whole would be corrupt. Kant’s explanation of lying remains valid because it goes back to the categorical
...ssailant as a means to an end. Kantianism allows a person to lie if the situation is crucial like saving a life but what if all situations just so happens to "save a life?" By following this logic, the world might as well be lying to "save a life" because it fits the second formulation even if the person lying was called out on it. People would have no proof if the person lied or not.
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 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 ...
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With on a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns. Trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994. Print.
With different views on when it is OK to lie, the people continue to debate. But personally, I respect Kant’s views on the idea that lying is bad. Lying weakens the purpose to serve justice, destroys the liars’s dignity, and messes up the records. But I think that rare situations justify lies. I believe lies to save someone's life or just to protect someone from a big danger is the only type of lie that is justified. Those situations are the only times I think it is OK to lie. It might seem that lying to get yourself out of trouble is a situation that makes the lie justified. But I think that is a selfish reason for your own good and that people are thinking less about the society and more about their own good. Lying to get out of trouble is one of those many lies that are not justified.
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.
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
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
In an attempt to justify Kant’s argument that there is a possibility that the person who is hiding found a way out therefore lying could in fact kill the victim and telling the truth will save him we will analyze a counterpoint. What if Kant is wrong, what if the victim logically assumes that they will be safe; therefore they do not try to find a way out of the house. If the host lies and calls the police they can find the murderer and arrest him, but if the host tells the truth the murderer would come in and possibly kill both people and then leave and there would be no justice for those deaths. Or even worse, they come in and kill the victim and leave the host. Anyone would feel guilt for letting that happen, and while Kant says that there would be no blame, and that the host did what is morally right, they would not feel that way and they would blame themselves. Kant could not argue this possibility, and while he may say that there would be no blame on the person, that is not how most people would rationalize the
What I mean by this extent is telling the truth unless it is going to lead to the harm of another. I wanted to draw this line because in the reading we discussed Kant’s argument which states in short, that we are obligated to the truth in all circumstances regardless of the outcomes. Kant believes this to be true because he is looking at the means to the end, which to him is doing what is right because it is right and not for any other reasons. This led us to taking about the example of the axe murderer looking for someone he’s trying to kill and we know the undisclosed location of this person; if we followed Kant’s view then we would be obligated to tell the axe murderer the location of the person. In Kant’s perspective our morality isn’t affected by disclosing the location of the person to the murderer, but instead the morality of the murderer trying to kill the person is in question. I don’t agree with this, I believe that Kant is on the right track; however, I would take a slightly different approach to his view of morality. This being that it is morally acceptable to be dishonest as long as the reason for this dishonesty is to save or help the life of another person, because in my perspective being a moral person is to look out for the benefit of others. By looking out for others in my personal opinion you are on the right path to living a good