Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel kant ethical theory critique
Kant theory of morality
The key role of freedom in Kant's ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel kant ethical theory critique
A deontological theory is one which condors act to be either be either intrinsically right or wrong, in themselves. Typically deontological theories use moral absolutes, which can derive from scripture of religious ideals. In this essay I will address both Kant’s theory of ethics, and Aquinas natural law applying them both to the issue of embryo use in medical research.
Kantian ethics is the first deontological theory I will address in this essay; Kant clearly locates the responsibility for making moral judgements lies with the individual, instead of an external authority or tradition such as sacred text or religious leader. He firmly believed that humans were completely free to make rational choices, if people are not free, the possibility of making moral choices would be denied. As humans we have the ability to freely rationalise or reason, a trait which sets us apart from animals. It is this rational autonomy that Kant identifies to be a key element of what gives humans their value or dignity. We must be free to do our duty; this is to follow the categorical imperative.
…show more content…
He also maintained the view that humans seek a ultimate end a supreme good, where a humans virtue and happiness becomes uncited at one with god. However this is impossible for humans to seek within their first lifetime,, we must have immoral souls in order to eventually succeed; an idea similar to reincarnation from Hinduism and enlightenment of Buddhism. Furthermore Kant believed there was a objective moral law, which we operate through the reason within us. Kant argues that we just know this moral law without needing to consider the consequences, we also do not look to any external forces, when deterring right from
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 ...
...‘which basically requires one to act only according to principles that are in themselves fit to be universal law’ (68). This brings about the will and freedom of a moral agent. Endowed with will, rational beings ‘cause things to happen in the world through their wills. A will that is free in the positive sense must determine itself, it must act in accord with a law that it adopts for itself, a law of freedom. This is exactly what it is to be autonomous, and therefore to recognise oneself as subject to the categorical imperative’ (80).
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
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.
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...
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.
... 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.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
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 a 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 willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. If we desire X we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Over the course of this essay, I will present the reader with information on Kant’s Deontology, including, but not limited to, explaining how Immanuel Kant discerns what is morally right and morally wrong. I will then apply these criterion to case number two, and attempt to accurately portray what Kant’s Deontology dictates is the morally correct response. Following this determination, I will show the reader that although Kant’s moral reasoning will lead us to a definitive answer, we should not be so quick to accept it. Interestingly enough, he seems to lead us to what would generally be the correct answer, but perhaps not in the given circumstance and not for the right reason.
Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.
I am going to argue why it is okay to tell as small lie to a friend in order to spare their feelings. I am going to touch on two ethical models, these being, Utilitarianism and Deontology. The individual that is a Utilitarian is Jeremy Bentham and the Deontologist is Immanuel Kant. I will be sharing their ideas and explaining why Jeremy Bentham’s ideas are more defensible than Kant’s ideas. I believe that if you are a good friend, it is important for you to keep the most optimal happiness between your friends and yourself. With Bentham's theory, Utilitarianism, the overall goal is to make the most people happy (Bentham 1). If the storyline of a lie is what makes the most people happy, Benthem says it is okay to lie. For Kant, a person is never
Kant’s idea of morality has a number of propositions that have been considered in moral culture. Human being deserves complete respect for his own humanity, and this respect will find its full expression by having the respect for the humanity of others. For Kant to be free is to be moral. For Kant, the reason why one should respect other is because of the complete value that he calls