The Objectivity and Rationality of Morality According to Kant morality is rational and objective. It is based on
rational human reasoning. For Kant it is not the consequences of an
action that make it moral but the reasoning or intention that goes
behind the choices one makes. What Kant is saying is that the only
thing which can be qualified as good is good intention. When the
intention behind an action is good, (what Kant calls the Good Will)
then the act is morally plausible because it is being done out of
duty. The will in this sense is seen as the power of rationale behind
a moral choice and out of this is borne the dignity of man. On the
other hand, acting out of inclination (emotions) is not moral because
it is either based on self interest or because one is bound to do so
by his conscience.
Acting out of duty in Kant’s point of view is acting in respect to the
moral law which is determined by what he calls the “Categorical
Imperative”. The Categorical Imperative is bound by three basic
principles which state that before an action takes place there is the
need to consider the maxim on which one is acting. If this maxim is
generalized, would it continue to make sense? Does it contradict
itself? Would you choose to live in a world where everyone follows
this maxim? If not, then it is wrong to use such a maxim as the basis
for an action. This essay seeks to address the issue of what is
morality and whether it is determined by duty or inclination.
Morality is def...
... middle of paper ...
... yield. As such Kant may be justified to an extent in saying that most
of our action are carried out in self –interest.
More so it can be said that there exist a significant minority of
people who can be said to have achieved a higher sense of morality and
as such do things without reasoning or a sense of duty to moral law
but out of what they personally believe to be right or wrong.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Warburton Nigel, Philosophy: The Classics
http://www.answer.com
http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/kant.htm
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu
http://www.american.edu
Leo Strauss, History of Political Philosophy
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jeremy Bentham (1998) “The Principles of Morals and Legislation”
New York; Prometheus Books
REFERENCES
The Wikipedia Encyclopedia
...d in the discussion of promise keeping and beneficence, identifiable logical or practical contradictions arise when attempting to universalize morally impermissible maxims (according to the CI). Mill argues that the CI only shows “that the consequences of [the maxims] universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” This is erroneous for there is no such “choice” available. The logical and practical contradictions that Mill fails to recognize produce an outcome (rejection of the maxim) necessitated by rationality and a free will. It is not that the consequences are unpleasant, but that their production is irrational.
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
The position that I hold regarding the essay’s question is that I do not believe in an objective morality or in objective moral truths, I believe that all morality is entirely relative and subjective based on cultural norms because moral relativism is the philosophized meaning that right and wrong are not absolute values and that they are personalized based on the individual and the circumstances or cultural orientation. Morality applies within cultures but not across them. Ethical or cultural relativism and the various schools of pragmatism ignore the fact that certain ethical percepts probably grounded in human nature do appear to be universal and ancient, if not eternal. Ethical codes also vary in different societies, economies, and geographies
Obvious -the word that perhaps succinctly defines the way Kant saw the truths of the world around him. Not so obvious are the arguments that lie within his writings. As he emphasizes the importance, yet confusing nature of reason in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, he proves his own point by his reasoning processes. However, in this work he systematically develops his argument for a universal good- the good will, in which inclination, duty, and reason play crucial roles. In this essay I will explain Kant's reasoning behind his statement that the only true good, without qualification, is the good will, and consequentially determine whether his idea of good varies from the Platonic ideal of goodness.
In the second section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that the will of every rational being gives universal moral law. Kant believes that this statement, normally referred to as the Formula of Autonomy, follows both from his Formula of Universal Law and Formula of Humanity. Together, these three formulas constitute the basis of Kant’s moral system. Kant must persuade his readers to believe that they have an interest in following this system, obeying moral laws, and doing their duty—he must convince readers that the moral law applies to them. He argues that the moral law applies to us because of the very nature of our finite rational will. If this is true, then we must view ourselves as the authors of the moral law, and consequently reject any maxims inconsistent with the autonomous moral law.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.
Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals explores themes of morality and its application to rational beings. Rationality, to Kant, includes a necessary commitment to morality, wherein failing to be moral is simultaneously a failure to be rational. Within this work, Kant proposes a concept that he entitles the “Categorical Imperative”. The Categorical Imperative is essential in the exploration of morality in the rational being, and, as with morality, is dependent solely on reason alone. The Categorical Imperative, as illustrated by Kant, is an unconditional law of morality that must be obeyed in all circumstances, separate from condition or character. As such, the Categorical Imperative serves a supreme principle of morality in
Kant formulates several notions of what the categorical imperative must be and sometimes seems to confuse how many definitions he has suggested. But it seems to be clear that the Formulas I and III carry more importance in developing our subjective maxims for action than the other three Formulas. While these other three formulas provide additional considerations for our formulation of subjective principles, they are secondary to the Formulas I and III.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
Deontological theories, “which take right and wrong as primary,” stand at the extreme end of the absolutist side of the moral continuum, and the most well known of the ultimate principles embraced by moral objectivism is Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative.2 In his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant undertakes the absolutist’s quest for a “supreme principle of morality,” and after meticulous consideration of human will and rational decision making, he declares that people should only commit acts “that [they] could also will that [their] maxim should become a universal law”.3 The categorical imperative is one of philosophy’s best attempts to provide an absolute principle, but when scrutinized, this famous dictum is not universal or logical. As one of the Enlightenment’s greatest proponents, Kant heralds the presence of equivalent rational thought in all men and develops his theories with an optimistic assessment of “the moral knowledge of common human reason”.4 This proposed parity creates problems with the categorical imperative because Kant believes that common reason produces common decision making, void of emotional considerations. However, the categorical imperative requires people to will certain actions, and what people will is unquestionably determined by desire, a purely emotional thought. Although Kant attempts to ensure the universality of his principle by removing “all subjective motives,” such as emotion, he incorrectly associates the human will with rational thought instead of desire.
...ecision making process that takes place when ethical dilemmas arise, but that it also seems refreshing as it takes us back to a time when society knew right from wrong and chose right. However, we also feel that beings capable of reason do not, as a whole, follow inherent duties. They are not always subject to imperatives which push them to act in the correct manner regardless of personal gain, or in the appropriate manner for personal gain.
Kant is a German philosopher who speaks heavily about the importance of individual duty and autonomy of the will within his work, The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Within the text, Kant guides his readers to live a life of meaning and quality rather than one of little substance and insignificance. His approach to life and how one makes decisions is that of a sound person, who believes and understands that in the end you cannot please everyone, and that as long as you are doing your very best to fulfill your duty you are living a life that has worth and meaning; even if in the end the results are not what you had planned or expected. Unlike Bentham and Mill, Kant teaches his readers that expressing good will and preforming one’s moral duties are the most important factors in leading a happy life, because it produces well-rounded members of society who care about others as well as
Kant calls moral values the only values that are ‘good without qualification,’ and thereby states something very profound about morality. Let us read his great text in which he expresses ma...
Morality can best be defined as, “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” “In philosophy we have a problem knowing the origin of right and wrong, there are various theories and ideas but we do not seem to have a definite answer to this question.” (Jamee Ford). When trying to decipher whether morality is objective or subjective, the logical answer would be that morality is objective. Objective morality is structured, and can be understood; therefore, it is rational. On the other hand, subjective morality is evoked from one’s personal feelings and emotions, and belongs to the contemplating subject; rather than the object of thought. Subjective morality is irrational, because not everyone in society