Marlena M Weers PHIL 201 Essay II Kant’s distinction between an action done in accordance with duty and an action done from duty can be confusing due to the fact that the only thing that changes them is the motivation for the act. An action done in accordance with duty would be an action done because it pleases me or is in my interest to do so. An example of this would everyone has a duty and direct inclination to preserve life (318). Conversely, an action done from duty would be an action that is done because it is my duty to do so, regardless of my interest. An example of this would be a philanthropist that no longer finds any joy in donating his time and money to the needy yet continues to do so because it is the right thing to do; he does so out of duty (319). …show more content…
“Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (329). Following Kant’s categorical imperative it would not be rationally consistent to universalize the maxim, “ Never say, “I love you” to someone unless that person says it to you first. The motivating principle would be to never get hurt by telling someone you love them and not having the feelings reciprocated. Due to the fact that people would always be waiting for everyone else to be saying I love you, I love you would become meaningless because everyone would always be waiting for someone else to say it. Accordingly, the maxim becomes self-contradictory. Furthermore, it would be rationally consistent to universalize the maxim, “Always pay your debts on time” using Kant’s categorical imperative. The motivating principle would be to avoid additional charges and or disconnection of services. This would be universally acceptable for everyone. Therefore I find that it would be acceptable to universalize
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Kant states that moral worth is the value of a good will in dutiful action. Dutiful actions done “from duty” have moral worth while dutiful actions that are merely “according to duty” have no moral
According to Kant “… nothing can protect us from a complete falling away from our idea of duty and preserve in the soul a well-grounded respect for duty’s law except the clear conviction that, even if there never have been actions springing from such pure source, the question at issue here is not whether this or that happened but that reason of itself and independently of all experience commands what ought to happen.” (Kant, Page 20(lines 407-412)). Kant points out that the duty is done not because of the ends but because of what is fundamentally good or
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
Also, another critique is that people would be acting out of moral duty instead of inclination, which is bad. Would you want somebody to do something because they must or because they want to? For example, if you were very sick and your friends came to visit you and they told you they only came because it was their “duty”. That would not feel too good. If we were to follow Kant’s ethics of duty, us people would seem more inhuman since we would only obey absolute rules for duty instead of
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
According to Kant, by acting out of moral duty we as humans fulfill the moral law to which we act out of respect for it. The moral law, which is also known as the categorical imperative, is Kant’s notion that man acts based on a, “universal maxim” without conditions (Groundwork pg.392). Kant’s notion of a categorical imperative is associated with objective ends. In other words, it declares what is right, not for individuals, but for mankind as a whole. Humanity, which comes from Kant’s notion of the categorical imperative, is understood, “as an end, never as a means” (Holtman pg.105). That is vital in comprehending Kant’s proposal that we as humans are the only beings capable of acting on the basis of policies or plans (Johnson pg.21), or in accordance with moral law. Unlike animals, humanity to humans is not something that serves to satisfy one’s instinctual pleasures, it is instead something which guards our existence through which man attains life. It is from this
In the case of the Inquiring Murderer, a woman runs past you and hides in some bushes. When you ask her what is going on, she tells you that someone chasing her is attempting to kill her, and asks you to leave. Soon after, a man armed with a knife asks you if you have seen the woman. Most people would have no issue lying to the man about the woman’s whereabouts. If you tell him where she is, he will almost certainly kill her. This way of thinking produces the greatest good, a consequentialist theory. However, one deontological approach to this situation would hold that lying, regardless of the circumstances, is unethical and an absolute moral law that cannot be violated. This idea of Kantian Ethics, along with Prima Facie Duties and Rights-Based
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
It is called the second formulation of the categorical imperative. According to Kant, it suggests that people should treat others as the way they want to be treated. He states, “Act in such a way that treat humanity, [...] always at the same time as an end never simply means” (36).All human beings have intrinsic value in themselves. Therefore human beings should not be view each other as tools that provide benefits. Instead we should treat each other well without thinking about the benefits we may get and treat others as same human beings as ourselves who are inherently valuable in
This love is an unpretentious and genuine love directed towards each other as kindred spirits. It is not focused on kinsman from the same country, same city, or the same town. It is not bound for those of the same religious beliefs, ethnic groups, or cultural groups. Rather, it sees the differences and reinforces it with love. The apostle Paul exemplified it by saying: Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” It is a love that is defined as a part of the household that is intrinsically in the Body of Christ. Frequently, when I am in church on in communication with people of faith, saying I love you, is an expression of that Philia
Furthermore, Kant uses the phrase moral worth which he defined as a special value an action has that only deserves credit when it is done from the motive of duty, that is, when someone does an action because it is done from the motive of d...
Kant first mentions his categorical imperative when talking about it in relation to universal law. He writes, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). What he means by this is that he should never act in a way that is harmful to other. His actions must apply to everyone and always result in good.
Always act in such a way that you could will that the maxim of your act become a Universal Law. This is the requirement of Universalizablity (everyone could act the same way).
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is defined by Kant to "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Good moral actions are those of which are motivated by maxims which can be consistently willed that it’s generalized form be a universal law of nature. These maxims are otherwise known as universal maxims. Maxims can then be put through the Categorical Imerative test to determine their universalisability and thus the premissability of the maxim. To test a maxim we must ask ourselves whether we can consistently will for a maxim to be obeyed by everyone all the time....