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.
After all the reading and carefully thinking about what Mr. Lasken had requested from his physician it left me with the decision that Dr. Brody should not grant Mr. Lasken request to help end his life. In my discussion, I spoke about the Kantian Ethics and how it applies to the dilemma Dr. Brody was up against. To help end someone’s life purposely, regardless of their involvement, should not be done in the hands of someone else nor should anyone be placed in that situation. I considered both views, and found no favor into helping Mr. Lasken end his life and would be wrong on Dr. Brody behalf. As a physician you are sworn in by Hippocratic Oath and under that you are required in doing right by the patients; make sure all possible attempts
Stephen Edwin King, a horror author, earned his fame due to his experiences skillfully crafting his books, making him a person whom all authors envy and admire. Starting with King’s young life, he constantly moved and his father abandoned them, shaping his career. These experiences as a child are the frame of his many of his books, such as his most famous book, Carrie, which is about a high school girl who realizes she is different and is repressed by family and society. This book became a hit when it came out, and he was announced to have created one the best horror books ever written. A mixture of supernatural flowing with the truth in his works entices readers from the start.
When using the utilitarian approach, suffering is always involved even if it is to a small degree. When acting along Kant’s categorical imperative, it is simpler and fairer. When acting you would only have to ask “If someone else did this would it be okay for them too?” If the utilitarian approach was used the person would have to ask more questions regarding the situation. Using categorical imperative is fairer because suffering, even to a slight amount, wouldn’t be an option.
For example, a murderer is at your house and asks you where your wife is. To lie to him would save your wife’s life, but you’re supposed to tell the truth because to not do so would be to deny the murderer their dignity. In Kantian thinking, the moral thing to do would be to tell the murderer. He says the duty to tell the truth is more important than any of the consequences. Weird, right?
The final ethical theory is Kant’s deontology. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who admire the stoics for their dedication to performing their duties and playing their part. He based his theory on duties, obligations, and rights. Its main focus is that everyone has an inherited right. It highlights the importance of respecting a person autonomy.
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.
As a Kantian, the ultimate goal is to focus on our maxims and not on how much pain or pleasure the act could possibly produce. So as a result, Kant would argue that Jim should not kill the Indian man, even if it would save the other Indian men. The reason why is because Kant does not believe in using people as mere means, it wouldn’t be considered a conceivable maxim, and it would be betraying a perfect duty. The definition of deontology is having the belief that you do what’s right because you have a moral duty.
Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative is essentially that you should act how you would want everyone else to act towards all other people. It says to act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. This is similar to many maxims held by different religions: do unto others as you would have done unto you. Although, Kant does not justify his philosophy with religion, but rather with reason and logic. He believes that it is logical to want to do good always.
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.
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.
The categorical imperative is an unconditional command, which, for Kant, told us what our duties were. This is a deontological theory, which means it points to the actions that are good in themselves and pursue the ultimate aim of reaching supreme good, while also telling us which actions are forbidden. This theory is based on duty. To act morally is to do one’s duty, and one’s duty is to obey the moral law. This theory distinguishes between duty and inclination and accepts that if something can’t be done, then there is no guilt.
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.
Immanuel Kant’s moral theory differs greatly from the other theories we have learned about, especially Mill’s view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions, while Kantian Ethics focuses on the intentions a person has before they act, and if they are fulfilling their duty as a person when acting. Kant explains his theory by providing examples of different people who are all doing the same action, but for different reasons. He discusses a store owner who charges everyone equal prices and explains that this only has moral worth if he is acting from duty, meaning he does this because it is what is right. The act is not moral if he acts in accordance with duty, or because he is worried about his reputation or business.
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?
