Kant's Theory And Autonomy Vs Heteronomy

Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who is responsible for developing Kantian Ethics. According to CSUS’ website page states, “Kant’s Theory is an example of 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 or duty. (“Kantian Ethics”, n.d.). Kant believed that people’s morals are based off from good will to fulfill are duties, and not based on the consequences of our actions. When it comes to Kantian Ethics, how does it affect one of the cases involving Ford fixing the vehicle they created in the 1970s called the Pinto. Is it Ford’s responsibility to fulfill their duty to fix a problem with the gas tank that could cause a fire due to rear end crashes? I believe by explaining the imperatives of Kantian Theory, and autonomy vs. heteronomy, it will show that it is Ford’s duty to fix the issue with the Pinto vehicle to prevent from

heteronomy. Autonomy is when someone chooses to do an act of kindness or good will, because they want to and they don’t need an intrinsic reward. An intrinsic reward is when someone does something, and they are content of doing this good deed. They do not need any recognition or tangible rewards to feel satisfied unlike heteronomy. Heteronomy is when someone chooses to do an act of duty in exchange for a reward, in other words this would be extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are when someone gets recognition or tangible rewards for something they have done. In the case with Ford they would fall under the guidelines of Heteronomy. The reason why that is, with them releasing the Pinto to begin with, and removing it off the market to “fix” the issue, they wanted to be recognized for initiating the idea they cared for the consumer by removing a dangerous vehicle off the market. Therefore, Ford’s actions fall under the Heteronomy category and not under