Both in fiction and reality, passion and obligation often clash. Sometimes it is easy for people to act out of an all encompassing desire to reach a goal. It is often done without realizing how their tunnel vision, and sometimes destructive actions, affect others and mostly themselves. Assurance that “the end justifies the means” will not excuse the harm caused by such obsessions. This is especially true if the end never even happens.
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
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
we neglect our own perfection. While there are additional duties that make us better moral persons, it is difficult to analyze them under C1 or C2 because of the uniqueness of these duties which focus on improving our capacity to act dutifully. Given that there are no duties to self derivable from C1 alone in the Doctrines of Virtues, when we turn to a discussion of duties to others we face even more complications. All the duties of love (and likewise benevolence) are loosely derived from C1. While we might consider other’ ends, we may not give practical assistance to others, such as neighbor who is in bad circumstance.
Ambition is an important quality for people to embrace as the actions they take to attain their desires will bring more meaning and worth to their lives; although, sometimes this desire to realize their ambition can be taken too far, leading to the corruption of their noble acts to the corruption of their power, destroying anyone in the path at the cost of their own morality. Individuals may be tempted by their ambition to realize their desires, maybe even with the support of others, yet they may still struggle with the immorality of their actions should they move forward. If this desire is finally acted on, their ambition may become so great that even the people that support them may be considered a burden that needs to be eliminated in order
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.
In order to under the ethics of Kant, it is important to understand the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative is an action that has no moral basis or obligation and is based (as shown in its name) on a hypothesis. These actions are set up with a cause-effect, action-consequence model by using the hypothetical form of “if this is done, then this will happen”. Due to this a person only decides to do anything with a certain end goal in mind. For example, I don’t do sprints just to do sprints.
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.
Introduction The Inherent Value of a Good Will Kant’s moral philosophy is an a priori theory, which presents itself as absolutely necessary. He writes that an a posteriori method can provide an account of the “is” – a factual description of what we actually do – but cannot provide an account of the “ought” – a command we must follow in any given situation. Kant draws a distinction between conditional goods and unconditional goods. Conditional goods depend on the existence of another fact for their goodness, while unconditional goods hold independently of other facts. Money and happiness are two examples of conditional goods, which Kant provides.
For consequential analysis of an action Kant would reply although the consequences of the action were right but the action itself was morally wrong. There are several reasons behind this. In the second scenario, the person should’ve acted out of duty and not any particular interests. Secondly his action also didn’t result in the greater happiness instead of stealing if that person could’ve tried to find a job and earn money to buy food for his family.
Immanuel Kant’s philosophy can be further evaluated through the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is based upon Kant’s idea that morality is derived from rationality and all moral judgments are rationally supported. The Categorical Imperative is an absolute nonnegotiable universal moral that holds up regardless of context and circumstance. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is broken down into different formulations.
A categorical imperative, then, would express a reason for acting which was unconditional in the sense of not being contingent upon any present desire of the agent to whose satisfaction the recommended action would contribute as a means--or more directly... (Rachels, 2010, p. 53) In this way we understand that when we "ought" to do something we are expressing the kind of action that we are willing to take to meet the goal morally where we should be. And that is where the skeptic draws the line because he believes that there should be no boundary or moral code that you should have to answer to, or the reasons for answering it. He just believes in his own judgements that will get him through life without morals or binding guidelines.
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."
Categorical Imperatives are rules you absolutely have to follow, which does not include your religious outlook, your desires, and or moral obligations. There are two famous rules/laws that we can identify and use in this case. The first one is “Act such that the maximum (principal) of your action can be willed to become universal law.” What Kant is saying here is we should only take action that can be
