Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel Kant, Essay
Immanuel Kant, Essay
The categorical imperative theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel Kant, Essay
Immanuel Kant, Essay
The categorical imperative theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel Kant, Essay
Kantians believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action does not depend on the consequences, but on whether they fulfill a duty. They must act in a way that will produce the greatest overall amount of good in the world. In this view there is no obligation to give money to a homeless person, but it is the right thing to do. Kant’s supreme moral principle is the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a moral law that is unconditional for all agents because of intrinsic value.
There is an interesting question to be raised when discussing the philosophy of Kant and his approach toward evil. The question lies in whether Kant’s philosophy is efficient to explain human predicament, that is, a person’s suffering in relation to a cause—usually evil—that he is subject to. In my opinion, although Kant’s arguments concerning evil are clear and logical in a sense, his theory is still too flawed to properly explain human predicament. In this paper, I will provide two reasons, which I would like to call common sense, to argue my position. First, Kant places too much emphasis on the intent behind an action rather than the consequence of the action itself.
Immanuel Kant made a large impact in the world of Philosophy. His goal was to introduce the principle of morality and have it become an important area in the history of Philosophy. He explains the idea of an objective principle and the initial concept of it. It is a command of reason and the direction of this command would be named an imperative. All imperatives mandate either categorically or hypothetically.
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.
For Kant, Morality is based on choice, or autonomy. If someone has the right of an autonomous will, they act based upon an action because it is simply desirable. In Contrast, Utilitarian’s believe that morality should be centered on what will bring the greatest happiness. I aim to demonstrate that Kant is right in his proposal on morality and autonomy by understanding and recognizing the flaws in the Utilitarian concept, and lastly addressing why Kant’s approach is more preferable. Before I address why Kant’s views on morality and the human autonomy is more preferable, it is important to understand what is being said on the Utilitarian’s terms.
Kant formulated an ethical standard through which to judge maxims and define morality. Kant’s Speaks about the categorical imperative, which is an imperative that says some action is required in and of itself, a duty. The categorical imperative judge’s maxims as so, do things in which you would want what you’re doing to become universal law.
Let’s analyse another scenario. There is a family, who doesn’t have money to buy food for themselves. They haven’t eaten in days and they’re losing their health due to starvation. Thus, in order to protect their health and life, a member of the family decides to steal some money to get food for all of them. Now what would Kant say about this scenario?
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."
I first learned how to swim in the Atlantic Ocean as an infant when I lived with my parents in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Little did I know back then the impact of what became my favorite activity would have on my entire life. When my family left Brazil, we moved to Puerto Rico where my “swimming pools” became the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. I loved the open water and loved swimming!
Topic:- The Critical Study of Kant’s Doctrine of Right. Introduction: What is Right? A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
The categorical imperative basically universalises everyone regardless of all circumstances and purposes (if it would be morally good for everyone to do it, and not just one being, Kantian morals then allow for it). Before taking a Kantian point of view, one must first determine the starting point of life (conception? six weeks? first heart beat? at birth?)
In the meantime anthropology must explore the cognitive, aesthetic and ethical universals on which such an idea of human unity might be founded. The categorical imperative to be good (“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) provided a moral link between individuals and this emergent inclusive order. In order to grasp this intellectually, Kant had to
Kant provides a definition of the categorical imperative, “ A categorical imperative would be one that represented an action as itself objectively necessary, without regard to any further end” (Kant 337). In other words, a categorical imperative is a moral law that absolute in any test or situation, and does not depend on the end result or an ulterior motive. The Formula of Universal Law depends on the reasoning, “ Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 330). This means that whatever your action is, it would be recast to apply to everyone. In this case the maxim is the rationality for doing an action, which has a end goal.
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.
(Hunter, 2001, p.306) There is no exception for rational individuals in the world to escape from the law of categorical imperative. The presentation of categorical imperative is somehow like a test of morality (Hunter, 2001, p.306), rather than just a moral concept. Moral maxim is of vital necessity in the determination of morality for an action. From Kant’s view, an action can be treated as moral when it is motivated by one’s maxim, while it also suits the universal law.