Immanuel Kant, like his predecessors John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, believed morality was based on standards of rationality. His influential work, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, argues for the existence of a “foundational principle of a metaphysics of morals”. 1 Such a principle, he asserts, must account for three propositions of morality: only actions done from duty have genuine moral worth, moral value arises from the maxim its action involves, not from the purpose that is to be achieved through it, and that a duty is an obligation to act in a specific manner out of respect for the law.2 Kant names this foundational principle the categorical imperative.
Kant’s categorical imperative is a method of determining an action’s morality based on the action being objectively necessary, and is the first of two types of imperatives. Such an action is good in itself, not just as a means of achieving some other purpose. Because Kant believes all people poses rational will, the categorical imperative applies to everyone, guiding him or her to act in the same way regardless of his or her circumstances or bias. It disregards the consequences of an action and only judges moral or immoral based on the intentions. Such an imperative is “Do not lie,” which Kant believes is a maxim that holds true in all cases. The categorical imperative is based on the single notion that one should act only on maxims that can reasonably and without contradiction be made a universal law. As such, it does not consider the details of circumstance and holds true universally, because it relies solely on a priori concepts. I will further explain Kant’s formulations of this imperative momentarily. Now that we have just seen the first type of imperative,...
... middle of paper ...
...aw. Kant rewrites this concept of universalizing maxims to determine duty in a second formulation that, while tests actions differently, he believes leads to the same moral conclusions.
The second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is to “act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.” This principle is meant to label behaviors that use humanity merely as a means to ones own ends as immoral. That is not to say that using people as a means is always wrong, just that their humanity must be simultaneously recognized as an end. In the example maxim “I will purposefully make empty promises to benefit my own well being,” that was used above, this action remains impermissible in terms of the second formulation.
Works Cited
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
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
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
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
In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant proposes a new form of determining the morality of an action. His moral philosophy is grounded upon possessing a single virtue at hand: a good will. Contrary to opposing moral arguments, his views provide absolute parameters with which to prescribe morality through moral requirements, better known as categorical imperatives. In this paper, I will endeavor in Kant’s view of categorical imperatives to better understand how the aforementioned provide a means to determine an action’s morality and how, when confronted by objections, stand firm in their absolute grounds.
Kant goes on to clarify that, “A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition” (p. 152). By this, he means that a good will is not made good by the thing it accomplishes in the end, but instead by the motivation for performing that action. He gives the example of someone who loves to help people and receives great pleasure from it. Now, to most this may seem like a perfectly good reason to do something for someone. However, Kant argues that if the morality of an action depends upon the intention of that action, then doing something for
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).
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. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less
The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. 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? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.
According to Kant, rational people have to act according to the categorical imperative, which can be thought of as a sort of tool or set of rules that people can use to decide whether or not an action is genuinely morally acceptable. There are multiple formulations derived from it. The first formulation states that people should only act according to certain rules or maxims that can become universal laws that apply to everyone without contradictions. This means that in a given scenario, the situation should be generalized into a universal law. If this universal law is applied to everyone in a hypothetical world, it must make sense and be possible without contradictions. Even the hypothetical world does make sense without contradictions, it must also be a world that people would want to live in. If an action does not pass this test, Kant says that we have a perfect duty not to do that particular action ever. For example, people have a perfect duty not to lie because in a world where everyone lies, no one would ever know who was telling the truth, no one would trust anyone, and it would be a world that no rational person would want to live in. For each of these reasons, humans have a perfect duty not to lie to one another. It is also possible for certain things to be considered imperfect duties, or things that you should do some of the time but you’re not necessarily always obligated to...
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.
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...
In the second section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that the will of every rational being gives universal moral law. Kant believes that this statement, normally referred to as the Formula of Autonomy, follows both from his Formula of Universal Law and Formula of Humanity. Together, these three formulas constitute the basis of Kant’s moral system. Kant must persuade his readers to believe that they have an interest in following this system, obeying moral laws, and doing their duty—he must convince readers that the moral law applies to them. He argues that the moral law applies to us because of the very nature of our finite rational will. If this is true, then we must view ourselves as the authors of the moral law, and consequently reject any maxims inconsistent with the autonomous moral law.
Alright, I’ll see if I can clarify this further. Essentially, Kant thought that there were two kinds of duties: perfect and imperfect duties. When you’re considering a particular action, there’s generally a maxim that you can extract from that action. A typical example is lying and the maxim “you should lie”. When we make this maxim a universal law, we make it something everyone should do, all the time. In other words, we get the law “you should always lie”. But it’s not possible for us to want this to be a universal law, because such a law is illogical; if everyone always lied, the very concept of a lie would be destroyed because lying is only possible if people sometimes tell the truth. This sort of logical impossibility leads to a perfect
... 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.