Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethics of animal rights
Kant and the categorical imperative
Should animals have rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The ethics of animal rights
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 categorical imperative is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
... middle of paper ...
...s a life at stake. Going back to the example, I can also argue that is not necessary for the person at the house to tell the stranger where the family relative is. It is true that he is not allowed to lie, but he can also choose to stay quiet. If he doesn’t say anything he has neither lied nor told the truth to the murderer.
Kant’s categorical imperative can provide a set of rules to formulate what a good person is and should do. Kantian philosophy is deontological and it requires people to always do their duty. Kant does not forbid feeling good or happiness, but it must be the case that each person can fulfill their duty even if they did not enjoy doing it. In summary, in order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative and I have provide justifications to use it in our daily day lives.
Take for example giving a performance report for a subpar employee. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you up front with them and tell them their performance is lacking and needs to improve? To follow the Categorical Imperative, you give them the poor report because it is the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or a decision can still be morally good as it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
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 second act of Kant’s categorical imperative pertains to how we treat others. According to Kant, we must “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
The categorical imperative cannot be applied universally by all people in all situations. As the analysis of the murderer asking about an intended victim shows, the person answering the question will be forced to violate the categorical imperative with a lie or the truth to the murderer. By employing Kant’s own strategy of consequence-based reasoning in terms of law, it becomes equally apparent that the CI does not universalize across different legal systems without requiring maxims that cannot survive the universalization
The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less
Consequentialism is a moral theory which is founded on the premise that an action is morally right if the outcomes of such actions maximize the good and minimize the bad. In contrast, Non-consequentialism is derived from the premise that some actions are inherently right or wrong. As these theories can derive either identical or varied conclusions in morally ambiguous situations, the conclusions in themselves, while important, can not be considered evidence for the theory’s value. Hence, as we can only judge a theories value by its premise, I will argue that consequentialism is derived from a sound premise, while non-consequentialism is based on an unfounded assertion.
Any discussion about ethics, deciding what is right or wrong, moral immoral, is bound to incite a passionate debate among people from different cultures and circumstances. With many ethical principles proposed by philosophers over the history of man, the only point that is clear is that the debate of what is the correct ethical philosophy will continue for generations. In the following, I will be discussing ethics from a plain consequentialist point of view, which is the primary form of consequentialism on which all other versions of consequentialism are based.
Kantian Ethics focuses on duties, rights, obligations, or principles. Kant’s categorical imperative states that we should act as if what action we decide would become universal law. The difficult part is determining whose duties and rights to abide by. Examining duty to the employer, duty to friendship, and duty to self is vital.
Immanuel Kant an influential philosopher of deontological, or duty based, ethics. Kant believed actions are given moral worth, not by the outcome, but by the motive behind it, and the only way to act morally is one that comes about based on universal laws. There is a class of imperatives that we must do, despite the outcome. Kant called these "categorical imperatives," we can call these moral actions. We do them because we feel obligated, they are our duty, and we do so whether we like the outcome, or not. There is also "hypothetical imperatives," these are things we need to do to get a specific outcome. Kant states that if we believe that an action is moral that we could argue that it be a universal law.
..., except a good will’(London). These duties are actions that are ethically obligatory and to circumvent the actions that are morally prohibited. Kant argues that ‘a good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes. It is good in itself, whether or not it prevails’ (Chen, p242). In Kant’s supposition, we are not moral for our feelings and ideals, for example, affection or empathy, we are moral for duty, both duty and reason can control our feelings so that we aren’t ruled by them, this arrangement of morals made here is along these lines in light of reason and not instinct, our intuitive information. In Kant’s own sentiment to be a good being you should act rationally and to act rationally is to carry on of cooperative attitude, where you are doing your duty for duty alone and not being overruled by feeling. To act out of obligation would be to perform
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
Kant’s categorical imperative states, “Right is right and must be done even under the most extreme conditions.” The basic concept is what is right for one is right for all for all time. I chose this principle because if people decided dishonesty over honesty when dealing with their...
Moral duty and moral law can be expressed as categorical imperative. We must look at categorical imperatives in order to determine what we ought to do regardless of what we want to happen. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle that results. What is essentially good consists in the mental disposition of consequences that result without it being interfered. Kant’s great moral principle, categorical imperative, has to be a priori.
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