A good will is defined maintaining moral value even if the actions do not accomplish its original intentions. The will is only considered good when it aligns with personal duty. Kant states duty should act from the respect of the moral law, and moral law is defined by the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a system that defines if a decision made by an individual is morally right or wrong in every circumstance based on an individual's moral obligations. The categorical imperative has a test to determine if the person's actions contain good will and duty.
Now as we begin to think on our morals, take this quote from Immanuel Kant’s book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and think about it, “Live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law” (Kant). In Immanuel Kant’s work, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, the first thing he concentrates on is, ‘good will’. Kant states, “There is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or
Immanuel Kant is the central figure in our modern philosophy. His position was to establish a single principle, the categorical imperative, from which all additional maxims can be derived. This is the idea that an action that is morally right is one that is done in accordance to the categorical imperative. An action is right only if to have everyone act in that situation using the same rule, rationally willing the rule universal.
Kant would answer back with concept that we are motivated to act morally out of moral duty. Take, for instance, a police officer. Any respectable police officer will have a sense of duty to protect and keep their community safe. The motivation does not rely on some desire of pleasure or happiness, but because a police officer would protect his community out of moral duty even if it causes him to go against his own happiness or pleasure. Although not all police officers act out of moral duty, Kant has put in place a duty that is understood to be respected by the human autonomy but also promotes freedom will.
This particular dilemma reiterates the notion of the Derivation of Duties that Kant discusses in his Categorical Imperative ethical approach. Kant explains that people have to learn to distinguish between perfect and imperfect duties. An example of a perfect duty would be that we should never commit murder under the circumstance, while an example of a imperfect duty be that we are required to treat all living beings with kindness and respect. The FWS are at a crossroads when it comes to satisfying both duties equally. Why should the barred owl be wiped out just to give the spotted owl better chance to thrive?
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.
This is often confused with the golden rule of “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.” However in Kantianism the rule is “treat people as they ought to be treated” (Burnor, 162). It then becomes ones duty to treat people as they ought to be treated and not base decisions on any one individual’s experiences. Kantianism is against “a posteriori” or actions that come from experience. As experiences are not universal and would create inconsistencies among people making moral choices, Kant is against making choices dependent on experiences.
Kant defines these actions that a person “ought” to do as a “law”, or an objective principle. For his first proposition of morality, Kant states that, “For an action to have genuine moral worth it must be done from duty (9).” Kant does not explain this
The Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant, is known to be one of the most influential philosophers in history. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of morals Kant discusses the idea of Goodwill and how it can be attained through duty and our morals. Throughout my paper I will talk about the meaning of people acting upon their morals and acting upon their duties, as to Kant refers in his words, what you want to do vs. what people ought to do. I will compare what is right vs. what is wrong considering hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative.
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."
Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to
Regarding to the numbers of Categorical Imperative, many Kantians make the response, for example, Nuyen supports the most widely accepted Paton’s view: there are five or more formulations. In my thesis, I will mainly analyze three main formulations and talk about formulation of autonomy in the last chapter. See A. T. Nuyen Counting the Formulas of the Categorical Imperative: One Plus Three Makes Four of formulation Like the challenge raised by Benjamin Constant in 1797, Kant responded in a short essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy. Constant’s charge is basically around Kant’s moral principle ‘duty to tell the truth’ would, if taken unconditionally and singly, make any society impossible.
If a person is acting in accordance with duty, they feel inclined to do something, not that it is their duty to do it. A person who is giving to others in accordance with duty, could possibly be doing it because everyone else is and they want to protect their reputation. This person would give to others for the recognition, to be praised or simply because everyone else is giving. A person who is giving in accordance with duty is likely doing it because they feel inclined to or for self-interested reasons. In the case of the philanthropists, both people that Kant describe are acting from duty.
Over the past years littering has become quite a concern for our nation. Everywhere we look and especially during the rainy season, we see rubbish in the muddy water. This happens when we litter without concern. But have we thought about the damage we are doing to the environment? Littering means throwing away waste to any area without any concern about what damage it may cause.
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.
