More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the fundamental principles of kant's ethical theory
Kant: fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals sumamry
Kant: fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals sumamry
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Kant’s notion of freedom connects to morality, which displays contrast between duty and inclination, explaining how only the motive of duty, doing the right thing for the right reason, confers moral worth of an action. Kant believes that everything in nature, including humans, “works in accordance with laws,” that all actions must be appointed by law, The formula of universal law that basically states how you should treat humanity as an end rather than as a means. He says we should only act upon the maxim, a principle that gives a reason for action, without contradiction. Davis claims that law is not always reliable when insuring justice; moreover, Kant can support
Kantians believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the consequences, but on whether they fulfill a duty. They must act in a way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. In this view there is no obligation to give money to a homeless person, but it is the right thing to do. Kant’s supreme moral principle is the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that is unconditional for all agents because of intrinsic value.
The hypothetical imperative relies on a desired outcome: "If you want ____, you must do ____". Duty is removed from the hypothetical imperative. Categorical imperative carries far more nuance in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it takes on three different formulations in the text as moral law. Although these formulations are perhaps simply restating, individually, they provide unique insights into Kant's thinking. In the first formulation, Kant says "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (Kant 421).
What does Kant mean by acting out of Duty? What Kant mean by acting out of Duty is in by what you know to be right within you and what is know to be morally right even thou sometimes to others it might even seem wrong. How does the Shoopekeeper in this reading exemplify this idea?
Where our choices should include everyone, as universal to be considered moral or immoral. His choice would be based on the common sense rather than what one feels on the time on having to choose. Kant believes in continuacion of life, where maintaining life is a moral action. In Rescue I we have to see who really is in danger, where all 6 people are in danger, how can you morally save five and kill one. We will have to follow one of the two wills which are autonomous: morality of respect to us having free will and heteronomous: respecting others morality.
Let’s analyse another scenario. There is a family, who doesn’t have money to buy food for themselves. They haven’t eaten in days and they’re losing their health due to starvation. Thus, in order to protect their health and life, a member of the family decides to steal some money to get food for all of them. Now what would Kant say about this scenario?
Ethics and the search for a good moral foundation first drew me into the world of philosophy. It is agreed that the two most important Ethical views are from the world’s two most renowned ethical philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this paper, I will explore be analyzing Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle and Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In particular, I want to discuss which principle provides a better guideline for making moral decisions. And which for practical purposes ought to be taught to individuals.
In his argument, he clearly states that a given hypothetical imperative would definitely compel some action in a certain setting (Rohlf, 2010). According to the categorical imperative theory, Kant denoted that, an absolute, unconditional requirement that tends to exert its authority in all circumstances be they required or justified as an end in itself (Kant, 1998). He contributed to moral philosophy in three different ways. He stated that a person should behave in a way that his or her actions are closely to be termed as universal and be in a position to apply to everyone (Kant & Sullivan,1996). He stated that a person should act and treat humanity as both the means and the end and also stated that people should act as of they were the lawmakers of a hypothetical
The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.
Hypothetical imperatives are duties that people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Categorical imperatives are the absolute and universal laws that guide moral actions. Kant believed that moral actions must be based on unconditional reasoning. Kant’s deontological principles of hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives have significantly influenced the medical field.
Kant and the Lying Promise In “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant explores the subject of duty and the binding force of morality. Kant explores the morality of among many cases, this paper being focused particularly on the case of the lying promise. To determine the morality of such action, Kant provides the Formula of Universal Law, which relies on a maxim passing four steps in order to be considered moral.
Kant wrote the Metaphysics of Ethics (1797) where he described his ethical system that is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. Moreover, human actions of any kind undertaken by the person is a result of the sense of duty dictated by reason. Kant also divided reason into two parts; hypothetical imperative which dictates that human actions were performed for a certain end, and the other is categorical imperative which is the basis of morality: “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” Thus, freedom is not a lawless freedom of anarchy but rather of self-government, the freedom to obey with consciousness on the universal laws manifested through reason.
Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.
When France fell under the Nazi occupation, Andre and Magda Trocme did all in their power to save Jewish people from the vicious hands of the Nazis. As the Pastor of a town, Andre encouraged the people to give shelter for Jewish refugees. Even when the Vichy authorities order him to provide a list of the Jews in the town, he refused and said: "We do not know what a Jew is. We only know human beings" (Hallie, 1979, p.103). Was his lie just?
Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.
