Kant's Categorical Argument
Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the late 18th
century and was arguably one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He
came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to the ontological
theory. Many people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life.
The topic I shall be discussing is Kant's categorical imperative and
the utilitarian's greatest happiness idea. There are significant
problems with both ideas. It is apparent however, that alternatives to
these two conflicting schools of thought have been offered. One
popular criticism of utilitarianism is that it deals too much with the
consequences of one's actions, and the same for Kant except that it
focuses too much upon intentions. Therefore I shall round up in part B
of my essay how both theories fail as moral guideline on how to live
life, and look at morality, which I feel are imperative in order to
live the good life. During part A I shall be explaining Kant’s
categorical argument in great detail.
For some time now philosophers have discussed the possibility of the
existence of right and wrong. The issues of morality and ethical
decision-making play a massive role in human actions and we are
constantly deciding whether or not the choices we make are 'moral'. As
an intuitive species when presented with a choice we are continuously
bugged with the question of: "Which alternative should I choose and
what reason should be behind my choice?" This is the tricky question
that Kant tries to answer. In fact for this question Kant states a
universal formula, which is the categorical imperative. This means by
which all acts can b...
... middle of paper ...
... is that someone’s intentions out
rule the consequences that result from any actions.
As I have shown from the case above. The trolley situation for
example, where the brakes stop functioning and the only way out is to
either kill five workers on the track or one to the side. Kant’s
answer would be not to steer away from the five workers because it
would be unfair to use the one to the side as a means to save the
others' lives. This is a tough case no matter how you look at it. The
other view seems like a better answer, sacrifice one for the greater
number, but regardless of how you look at it, this case is no win. The
main problem with Kant’s ideas is that it deals with intentions, and
while they are important in distinguishing one's actions, they are not
the only factor in question when placed with life's dilemmas.
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.
“The ordinary man needs philosophy because the claims of pleasure tempt him to become a self-deceiver and to argue sophistically against what appear to be the harsh demands of morality. This gives rise to what Kant calls a natural dialectic—a tendency to indulge in plausible arguments which contradict one another, and in this way to undermine the claims of duty. This may be disastrous to morality in practice, so disastrous that in the end ordinary human reason is to be found only in philosophy, and in particular in a critique of practical reason, which will trace our moral principle to its source in reason itself.”
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
Google defines Categorical Imperative as “(in Kantian ethics) an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person 's inclination or purpose.” (Google) Thus, there is no middle ground on morals nor is there ever a situation to where one should commit a moral wrong doing. Immanuel Kant had strong views regarding Categorical Imperative and believed that universal law applies to all. He also believes there cannot be any exceptions to this rule, or it becomes right for all to live by the exception. Although Kant presents a strong argument on the topic of lying, he overlooks key elements that vastly flaw his thinking.
The modern European critical tradition has its origin in the Enlightenment movement particularly in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who attempted at a critique of reason. Kant during his philosophical inquiry of the revision of the liberal humanist tradition replaced metaphysics with critique. As far as Kant was concerned, critique involved the tracing of the origin of experience back to the human faculties of the mind. If science meant a passive description of the world before Kant, science became an active domain where the human categories were imposed. For Kant and his followers, science no longer created knowledge from things in themselves but produced it from the phenomena of the world (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason)
In Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant begins by discussing two types of imperatives: hypothetical imperatives, which are means to an unrelated ends, and categorical imperatives, which are objectively necessary and ends in and of themselves. Hypothetical imperatives include rules of skill and counsels of prudence. Rules of skill are rules that state something must be done to achieve something else. For example, a person must practice the piano to become good at playing it. Counsels of prudence are rules that provide means to happiness. They operate under the assumption that everyone wants happiness. Counsels of prudence must be empirical because everyone has different ways of achieving happiness and those can only be found
Moral decision-making constitutes an important part of the everyday human life. In this paper, I will examine and contrast Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative, both, which provide people with a moral structure, and how the issue of etiquettes relates to Kantian Theory. It is important to note that both the theories have their advantages and drawbacks, thus to enable one to make a methodical decision, it is important to understand the basic principles of each. However, in this paper there will be a main focus on Kantian Categorical argument and then discussing the issue of etiquettes.
Immanuel Kant was a famous German philosopher (1724-1804). His many philosophical writings influenced large population from all over the world. Even today, his works still form a major point of reference in research carried out in the modern world. His writings had a strong base such that they brought a new dimension in religion, law and history. Although all his writings were popular but Metaphysics of Morals was very influencing. Kant argued that our desires and emotions are categorically imperative, which means that they are conscience driven. His philosophy is closely related to the golden rule. It which states that an individual should always act in accordance to the outcome that will give him/her the best outcome, while Kant’s categorical imperative rule argues that actions must be universal for them to be classified as either moral or immoral. Through Kant’s categorical imperative we can distinguish between our
People argue about the value of a human life almost everyday whether it be divided
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy either because the baby is unwanted or the mother requires the abortion due to medical complications. With this issue the controversy lies in three moral groups of thought. First, the conservative view that believes that abortion defies moral law and/or should only be used to when medically necessary for the mother. The liberal view states that an abortion can be used regardless of the reason because the decision solely rests with the mother. Lastly, the moderate view believes that the act of aborting is justified to a wavering point. After review of the different positions on abortion and Kant’s ideals on morals, specifically categorical imperative, Kant’s view point on this controversial issue would be conservative or against abortion.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
Kant's Categorical Imperative Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted, regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant, who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “ The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willingness, i.e., it is good of itself”.
In the beginning of my paper, on page two, it was suggested that I should have wrote “I will argue” instead of “it will be argued”. I do not agree with this suggestion as I feel that using a personal pronoun in the beginning of my paper would be inconsistent with the rest of my paper. As well, it was also suggested that I should have included the reason for why I chose my thesis. However, in my thesis it states clearly that I believe it is unethical for healthcare providers to interfere with competent patients and their rights to make decisions about their own medical treatments. Next, on the third page, when I state “However, this would eliminate patient choice regarding their care”, the grader wrote “this is a consequence -> Kant is concerned
In fact, the “radical evil” is a thought that Arendt borrows from Kant. According to UCSD professor Henry E. Allison’s “Idealism and Freedom”, Kant is the first person who uses this concept in his work “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”. Kant believes that human’s inclination will seduce them to do evil. When people do not abide by the moral law, but follow their own preferences to behave, it is human’s “radical evil”. The “evil” is called “radical” which does not indicate a specific or extremely awful “evil”, but it refers to any possible source or basis from the “evil”. Kant concludes the cause of the moral conduct as a universal (or general) morality from rational practice. In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant indicates that the “evil” is primarily chosen from “subjective” basis which is opposite to the moral conduct. The characteristic of it is a designed self-deception which means subjective