In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant does not presume to establish moral laws; he posits the basis for moral law itself. Through this process, Kant introduces the opposing concepts of heteronomy, laws provided externally for the individual, and autonomy, laws established via the application of reason. The implication arises that autonomy under Kant's definition is freedom, and that autonomy is a requisite for moral actions. To fully develop an understanding of this relationship it is crucial to deconstruct and integrate his notions of: will, duty, maxim, and imperative. Humans have the unique ability to perceive natural law, and imagine or will those forces to be different.
Kant claimed that individuals must act from duty in order to make morally right choices and that the motives of an individual determine whether the choice made is right or wrong. In this system, the consequences and results of the action do not matter.
Kant on the other hand argues that good deeds should be influenced by an individual instead of the society (Neill 41). Therefore, everyone should be responsible of their own actions. The three philosophers therefore agree that it is the responsibility of individuals to act in a responsible way and be law
Philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the most known advocates for in-compatibilism, which, is the disbelief in a coexistence of both free will and determinism. Kant argues that morality implies rationality, and, that rationality implies freedom. Kant views rationality as normative in that it requires rules of both reason and morality. Meaning, to Kant, acting moral and thinking reasonably are similar as they are both prescriptions of rationality. Furthermore, Kant believes that morality, and specifically, moral law is a categorical imperative, not a hypothetical one.
He begins by stating, “Is impossible to think of anything at all in the world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good without limitation except a good will” (Kant 99). According to Kant the most important thing a person can have that is good without qualification or limitation is having a good will. Good will is the foundation of Kant’s theory about motive and is the first of his important points. He then goes on to explain what a good will. " A good will is not good because of what it effects accomplishes, because if its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because of its volition, that is, it is good in itself and, regarded for itself, is to be valued incomparably higher than all that could merely be brought about by it in favor of some inclination and indeed, if you will, of the sum of all it's inclinations" (Kant 100).
Melville 's “Benito Cereno, published in Putnam’s Monthly Magazine in 1855, has been considered “‘one of the most sensitively poised pieces of writing’ that Melville ever conceived” (Feltenstein, 246). The intricacy of Melville’s story holds many hidden meanings and varied readings. Rosalie Feltenstein, Max Putzel and Matthew Rebhorn have taken it upon themselves to uncover some of these mysteries in their respective articles, “Melville’s ‘Benito Cereno’”, “The Source and the Symbols of Melville 's ‘Benito Cereno’ and “Minding the Body: ‘Benito Cereno’ and Melville’s Embodied Reading Practice”. While these authors develop different interpretations, the recurrence of motifs concerned with evil, its persistence, symptoms, causes and ambiguity
Kant states that one is a good or bad person depending on the intentions or motivations behind their actions rather then the outcome of those actions. I agree with this statement because many times ones actions do not play out like we planned and that is ok as longest we tried. The consequences of someone’s actions are not isolated
Kant’s ethical theory Kant’s ethical theory relies on the principles that the only one thing, which is good without qualification, is a good will. In Kant’s term, a good will is a will, where all taken decisions are fully determined by the Moral Law or moral demands. He states that all talents of the mind, which can include intelligence, wit, judgment, courage and others can be definitely named as good traits, however, at the same time these qualities can also become extremely bad on the condition that the will of using them is not good. Kant believed that some kinds of actions should be prohibited, such as murder, theft or lying, even though the consequences of these actions would lead to bringing more happiness than the alternative (Bonevac,
Those who assume extremal empirical grounds as the principle of morality, base it on examples of custom and education, through community with one another, men engender that which seems similar to a moral law (Kant’s letters on ethics.29:622). Kant holds, then, that the subjective, empirical and internal serve as the foundations of moral feeling and also the basis for the principle of morality. However, after a short while, he realizes this psychological explanation of morality remains deficient. Consequently, he alters his views in order to essentially rule out obscurity and specifically the notion of the privacy of the indemonstrable concept of the good.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative of Universal Laws and Humanity People have an intrinsic worth and value above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there is a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and that should be uniformly abided by that enables humanity to function as an amicable society.
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
Kant sets out to elucidate what the categorical imperative contains. We ought to bear in mind that the categorical imperative is not a concept that can be established by an appeal to experience, since experience cannot furnish us with what ought to be, but rather what is. The categorical imperative, Kant explains, is not analytic, but rather it is a practical synthetic principle a priori, and establishing how synthetic a priori propositions are possible is always a daunting undertaking. With this difficulty, Kant resolves to postpone the resolution of the unconditional imperative for the latter part of his work (420). Kant argues that hypothetical imperatives – imperatives based on desire or inclination – are conditional, since they are dependent
The categorical imperative is formal, while the substance is decided by the person. The idea is that by a process of reasoning, one can check his intuitions and desires and see if they can become a general rule for moral behavior. Kant bases his theory on three main concepts: the good will, the duty and the law. The moral worth of an action is measured in its intention.
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.
