Comparing Kant's Theory And Analysis

1774 Words8 Pages

Kant believed that certain types of actions which including murder, theft, and lying were bad and should be forbidden, even in cases where the action would bring more happiness than the alternative. Kant’s theory is a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty/ purpose. Synthetic and Analytic Analytic are statements are statements which are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject. All analytic statements are a priori because they are true by subjects concepts.An example of an analytic statement would be Frozen water is ice or two halves make up a whole.Analytic statements are A Priori …show more content…

The predicate concept is not contained in the subject. Synthetic trues can be true but not by definition.A Priori statements are moral concepts based on justification. Kant says moral concepts and ideas combine Posteriori-something that is known based on logic that is derived from experience. Posteriori statements would be your date of birth. Your date of birth is something you can not reasonably argue that it happened any other day making it posteriori as it is true separate from experience. Synthetic a priori statements are ethical statements. They exist independent of experience but they are not necessarily true.Nothing can be red all over and green all over at the same time would be a good example for an a priori synthetic statements would be Analytic posteriori statements are an truths which has an entirely function of its meaning. All widows were once married" is a simple …show more content…

In Kant's Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals he states that nothing in the world could be qualified as good except the good will. The good will gives us the will do the right thing inevitably ending in good. The only way actions can really be moral is if they are motivated by good will, morals are a part of us being rational beings. Leading onto reason, we use our reason to try to do good and follow our duties. By using our knowledge, experience and reason we can form an opinion which can help us do our duty. We might use our reason to empathise with someone who has gone through an abortion, although we might not have gone through one we can use our knowledge and reason to pass a judgement on it.Freedom allows us to follow through with our moral duty. Without the possibility to do something we would not have a sense that we ought to do it. Duty hardly gives guidance for making moral decisions because in real life there are moral dilemmas. W.D Ross addressed this problem, Ross believed that after building up moral principles over time (prima facie duties) we are able to decide on which duty to follow which fits us best. Hypothetical imperatives Hypothetical imperatives are what people may refer to as ‘if statements’. They are what you should do in order to achieve a given result. For example; if you want to win a race you must train.If you have no interest in the race then you should not do anything to