More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel kant categorical imperative essay
Immanuel kant categorical imperative essay
Immanuel kant categorical imperative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel kant categorical imperative essay
Categorical Imperative and Duties Kant divides duties into two groups- duties towards others and duties towards self. They are further subdivided into strict and meritorious duties. Lets consider these duties one by one in light of Categorical Imperative. Strict Duties to others : Consider a person is in need of money.
In the articles of Jeremy Rifkin, Victoria Braithwaite, and Ed Yong, there's a deep research and debate whether animals should be given the right to have human rights or not. All authors include their perspective on the issue and provide scientific evidence. However, I believe that there should be a separation of rights between animals and humans because there is no biological basis for drawing the line. Giving the right to apes, what factors exclude other mammals like dogs, cats, and birds.
In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.
By using Kant’s two formulations of the categorical imperative we can gain insight on what is the right thing to do. First, we can use Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative which is universalizing the maxim. However before we test our actions against the first formulation, we must consider our actions a maxim (rule). Now lets consider the action where I lie to the family and test it maxim against the first formulation. We must ask ourselves, is this maxim consistent?
In this particular assignment, we as a class were presented with a scenario, in which two adults involved in an extramarital affair became witnesses in a murder. The dilemma facing both John and Martha is whether or not to report to the authorities that the suspect they have in custody was not the individual they witnessed committing the murder. Coming forward, however, would uncover their illicit affair and most likely destroy their respective families. In the essay, I will defend what would be Immanuel Kant’s solution to this moral predicament posed by Martha and John’s actions because it contributes the most to living a worthwhile ethical life in this situation, when compared with the other philosophers we’ve discussed this semester. Nevertheless, before this, I will first show how Bentham and Aristotle would resolve the above dilemma.
In addition, Kant says that the hypothetical imperative has the relationships between means and ends. Insofar as a human has adapted to an end, he is committed to adopting the means. For the same instance, a person has the end of doing well at the school. The ideal way is to think that what he should do or not do in order to achieve it. If he wants to be well at the school, going to the parties every night is a mistake for him.
The end does not justify the means. This was the principal ethical theory of Immanuel Kant and made up his ‘Categorical Imperative’, a deontological argument which showcased how certain actions are fundamentally wrong, such as murder, lying or torture and can therefore, never be justified. Contrastingly a utilitarian would claim that the ends do in fact justify the means and would enact a focus on outcomes in deciding whether or not an action is morally permissible. In 2002 Jakob Von Metzler, a boy of just twelve years, was kidnapped and a police officer threatened the kidnapper, Magnus Gafgen, with torture in an attempt to find and save the child. Gafgen told the officer that he had killed the boy and then disclosed the location of the body.
ALT Selection Committee. LETTER OF INTENT I write to apply for the African Leaders of Tomorrow (ALT) Scholarship to increase my knowledge of public policy with a focus on health policy. My background in health plus a strong desire for civic advancement makes me a good candidate for the program.
However, the very meaning of the rule given above is contradictory. If people’s lives can be sacrificed for the benefit of humanity, then how can one determine where the line of sacrifice stops? If everybody can be sacrificed and is sacrificed, then what is left of humanity in the end? The basis of all other benefits is life and if a system is arbitrarily sacrificing people’s lives, then there is no way one can say that sacrificing people is for the benefit of humanity. So, the Categorical Imperative has already been broken by the movie, specifically in its use of the system of Pre-Crime.
I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."
Although the Categorical Imperative seems like an ideal way to define morals, it would be hard for it to work in the world of today. I don't think everyone has the luxury of thinking about universal laws and the ultimate purpose of humanity. Like I mentioned in an older module, lots of people are just trying to survive, and adopting an ethical viewpoint such as this is far down on the list of priorities. For example, lets take a look at lying, and assume that since everyone agrees that they wouldn't like being lied to, telling the truth becomes universal law. Now imagine that you find yourself stuck in a group of extremists, and in order to survive, you must cooperate.
Using Kant’s notion of a maxim it would be wrong to cheat on the final exam in a course that you do not like and feel you will not benefit from. In the book it stated this, “Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that lying is wrong under any circumstances. He did not appeal to religion; instead, he held that lying is forbidden by reason itself” (Rachels 129). This shows that no matter what the situation may be that lying is looked down upon. He believed that every rational person should believe the Categorical Imperative.
Bribery is defined on the dictionary as offering, giving, or receiving of a bribe, which means giving or receiving of something of value in exchange of specific favorable outcome that it may not occur if it weren’t for the bribe. “Bribery law consists of the criminal rules for dealing with people who attempt to buy influence with public officials and other decision-makers.” (Bribery and Corruption Law). The crime of bribery covers a broad scope of wrongful conduct, for instances, bribes of cash, favors, assets, services, or anything else of value, whether delivered presently or in the future. Bribes can occur directly, or indirectly through third parties in order to disguise the transaction.
First, I will explain the Formula of Universal Law and focus on the ethical position of duty belonging to Kant’s deontological ethics. Next, I’ll present Kant’s lying promise case and will analyze his explanation of it being immoral through the Formula of Universal Law. Finally, I’ll end by stating my disagreement with Kant’s
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.
