Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The three formulations of the categorical imperative
The three formulations of the categorical imperative
First categorical imperative
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The three formulations of the categorical imperative
FACTS
I have recently been approached by Luke, an employee of ABC, for advice on how to approach a scenario related to Owen, Luke’s brother, who happens to live on the corner of the neighborhood near the developed land on which ABC plans to build an adult entertainment retail store. Luke knows that when the plans for the store are made public, the property value of the surrounding area would significantly decrease. Luke also knows that this would hurt Owen, who had recently received an offer for his house at an “okay” price, given the state of the current housing market. Luke feels conflicted between his obligations of confidentiality and loyalty towards the company and the loyalty and familial concern he has for his brother’s well-being and
…show more content…
Introduced in Kant’s “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant sought to universalize the morality of all actions through three basic formulations. The first of Kant’s formulations claims that one should act in such a way that if such action was repeated by everyone else that one would wholesomely accept said action to be morally right. The second formulation states that you should not treat a person, a being with a rational nature, merely as a means to satisfy one’s needs. The final formulation states you, a human being, should do the right thing regardless of the consequences of your actions. From the categorical imperative Kant created maxims (principles) which determine whether what one is doing is morally right or wrong. Some of these maxims include “One should not lie under any circumstances”, “Stealing and murder is wrong and immoral”, and “One should not bring harm to others”. In applying Kant’s categorical imperative to Luke’s situation the two maxims which holds the greatest relevance and applicability is “Not lying under any circumstances” and “Not bringing harm to others”. In the scenario where Luke applies the categorical imperative to his professional community, he would use the maxim of “Not bringing harm to others” because he knows that by telling Owen about the company’s confidential information he is committing an act of public disclosure. From the public disclosure ABC would receive bad publicity, tarnishing its reputation, and people, such as Luke or his coworkers, would potentially lose their jobs from the store’s closure if management in the company found out someone on the production team (Luke) had leaked the information publicly. On the other hand, if Luke applies categorical imperative to Owen he would be using the maxim of “Not lying under any circumstances” which would include lying by omission of the truth. Luke knows that if he doesn’t tell this vital
Cruickshank, Garth & Romano is a new real estate appraisal and consulting firm. Richard Romano, a principle of the firm, had just completed a preliminary evaluation of a property for a new client, Watson & Musico. However, his client refuses to accept the appraisal and requested the value be increased by $4.5 million or else they would take their business elsewhere. Richard's decision on his client's estimate could have great impact on Cruickshank, Garth & Romano's success and its ability to develop new clients. The new firm could ill-afford to pass up on doing Watson & Musico's business but Richard also wanted to complete the appraisal according to his best estimate of the current market value of the property. This paper will analyze the ethical issues and alternatives for this case.
Silence or Omission: Not coming forward or withholding important information can be highly unethical if it leads to harm or damages
With different views on when it is OK to lie, the people continue to debate. But personally, I respect Kant’s views on the idea that lying is bad. Lying weakens the purpose to serve justice, destroys the liars’s dignity, and messes up the records. But I think that rare situations justify lies. I believe lies to save someone's life or just to protect someone from a big danger is the only type of lie that is justified. Those situations are the only times I think it is OK to lie. It might seem that lying to get yourself out of trouble is a situation that makes the lie justified. But I think that is a selfish reason for your own good and that people are thinking less about the society and more about their own good. Lying to get out of trouble is one of those many lies that are not justified.
“Most people in the U.S. want to do the right thing, and they want others to do the right thing. Thus, reputation and trust are important to pretty much everyone individuals and organizations. However, individuals do have different values, attributes, and priorities that guide their decisions and behavior. Taken to an extreme, almost any personal value, attribute, or priority can “cause” an ethical breach (e.g. risk taking, love of money or sta...
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
The act of whistle-blowing is an ethical issue that all employees have the right to. Whether they decide to make the corrupt information known publicly or anonymously, the information they provide can protect everyone involved. The ethical and moral sides of whistle-blowing can go both ways. In order to protect the customers, patients, or consumers of the harmful products the companies are offering, employees that have morals and feel the need to make the truth be known have an ethical responsibility to do so. Issues of being a whistle-blower are more controversial than the responsibilities of the employees doing so. When a whistle-blower takes action, they expose information from their company that it not meant to be public. They basically turn their backs away from their company and colleagues by revealing the truth. When surveying these issues, an employee who is torn by exposing information or keeping silent must decide whether it is more ethical to stay loyal to their organization or to the organization's
Kant viewed lying as a moral atrocity and there were never any reasons to lie. In fact, Kant believed “ that lying under any circumstances is “the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being.”” (Rachels 2016 p139) The second most important was Kent’s rule is based on no exceptions. In Kent’s eye’s if we accept lying even as an exception, we then embrace it as natural law and conclude lying is okay for any and all reasons. If people accepted lying as natural law, then no one would take anyone’s word seriously, thus creating a cycle of disorder throughout society and the cycle in which society operates.
Philosophy is derived from Ancient Greek as “philosophia” which means “love of wisdom” (Liddell). In Western Philosophy, there are two predominant schools of ethical thought and these are: categorical moral imperative and consequentialism. In this essay, some background descriptions on each theory are provided, and I will provide justifications for using categorical moral imperatives.
The right to lie predisposes the society to a place where an individual can lie in order to achieve his/her own desires while in complete disregard to other people’s interest. The Kantian principle seeks to ensure that people are treated respectfully as independent, rational, and moral beings. Through such kind of treatment, a person’s sense of dignity is respected and valued, which is an essential element of personhood. The right to lie violates the Kantian principle through deny a person the rational, moral, and independent choice of his/her essential personhood. Therefore, the right to lie should be denied in order to ensure that people are not treated as means of accomplishing some personal goals and desires at the expense of
Using Kantian philosophy a lie is always immoral and wrong, no matter what the situation is. Kantian ethics establishes the idea that good will be based on the action itself rather than outcome or any inclination one may have to perform an act could be good will.
The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a contradiction in conception or will, than this maxim cannot become universal law, and thus, the act is not morally permissible. A contradiction in conception occurs when by willing one’s maxim to become universal law, one is imagining a logically impossible world, for there is a contradiction in the very idea of every rational creature acting on this maxim. In contrast, a contradiction in will does not yield a logically impossible world, but there is a contradiction in willing what it is one proposes to do and in wanting the maxim to become universal law.
Telling the truth teaches one person self- respect for themselves and others as well. Telling the truth also sets a good example for others to do the same thing and make a “chain reaction”. People can make a “chain reaction” by passing on what they have done from one person to another, and before you know it, everyone is changing greatly, and the world is progressing tremendously. Lies are told all around the world, and they are told every day. One lie can often lead to another lie and cause you to be caught up in one big lie that will be hard to get out of if people do not tell the truth. If a person thinks that is okay to lie, they better think again, the truth always comes out no matter how hard a person tries to keep it in, or how much someone thinks that they can get away with lying. No person can keep in or hold a grudge with what they have done. After all, telling the truth is the right thing to do, and everyone should do it. Telling the truth is always much easier than the trouble of a
Kantianism is named after a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived in 1724-1804. According to Kant, the only thing that is good is good will; moreover, the good will builds the whole structure of the society. Kantianism is based on the intent of the action or person’s intention which are the predominant attributes of the good will. The basic principle of Kantianism theory depicts the idea of universal truths. It explains that a moral rule must be universal. Also, it describes that people should be treated with respect. Moreover, it explains the credibility of an action why it is right or wrong and convinces the user with logical reasons. Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative, which describes a set up to explain, “What makes a moral rule appropriate?” One version of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for a person to use himself or another person uniquely as a means to an end. Most of the time it is easier to use the second version of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view. For example, in the case of Jean, misusing the responsibilities of someone else’s duty. It was wrong for Jean to treat the profession of the doctor as a means to an end. Jean deceived the profession of the doctors with the goal of getting benefit to save his nephew. It was wrong for jean to misuse his responsibilities rather than to think that he can find a way to look for a doctor. We can also look at this scenario using the first version of the Categorical Imperative. Jean wanted to save his nephew Pierre. A proposed moral rule might be, “Take a decision in his hands to save his nephew.” However, if everyone followed the same rule, it will diminish the sense of duty, responsibility, and the respect of the profession. If everyone will act the same way in this type of situation and try to misuse his or her professional responsibilities, then there will
Kant speaks of the categorical imperative as being “conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason” (567). In other words, the categorical imperative does not have some kind of hidden agenda for the person carrying out the action. The person expects nothing that could assist them in any fashion to come from the transaction. Basically, the reason for performing the action in no way depends upon its outcome. However, the categorical imperative as a whole is a broad concept which can be broken down into smaller segments. There are two major differing forms of the categorical imperative, the universal law and the humanity principle. Universal law states that one should
Secondly, it is okay to be untruthful if you are trying to protect people. In certain situations, it is safer, and more practical for you to tell a lie rather than putting a loved one in jeopardy. To illustrate you may be in a situation where you are in a serious or dangerous situation, and you do not what anyone else involved, to keep them safe. For example, if you are getting held up for ransom, would you tell the truth to a loved one and get them involved, or lie and keep them safe? The obvious answer is to keep them safe at all costs, even if it means lying. Also, you do not want to put someone in harm’s way, so it would be ...