Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Whiplash film and media analysis
Kant view of morality
Kant view of morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Whiplash film and media analysis
nopsis)- Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) is an ambitious young jazz drummer, in pursuit of rising to the top of his elite music conservatory. Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), an instructor known for his terrifying teaching methods, discovers Andrew and transfers the aspiring drummer into the top jazz ensemble, forever changing the young man 's life. But Andrew 's passion to achieve perfection quickly spirals into obsession, as his ruthless teacher pushes him to the brink of his ability and his sanity. Whiplash is a phenomenal movie that deals with many different ethical dilemmas. Many of the characters in the movie deal with critical ethical choices, and through their choice the question to consider is how might different ethical philosophers …show more content…
Kant believes that justifying an act based on its consequence is too subjective; it makes morality too individualistic and opens the door for moral inequality. As human beings, we all posses the faculty of reason, Kant says that for an act to be considered moral it must be “reasonable”, but in this case reason does not mean logic, it means the human ability to understand a categorical concept of morality. Kant adds that this will lead us to a universal code, which is the “universal moral principle” that we as humans must all abide too. Meaning, we must act in a way that others should act, we as individuals cannot have our own moral law; it has to apply to everyone. He also goes into depth about Autonomy vs. Heteronomy, which is about making a choice as a ends and not a means. Autonomy means making a choice as an end in and of itself and not a mean, this is when one differentiates between the act and the consequence. Heteronomy means acting according to an external determination and this type of reasoning for an action makes it immoral. Kant does not care about the consequence, the only thing that matters and the only way an act can be rendered moral is the persons motive of duty to a universal rational principle when the specific act is being perused. Kant also emphasizes that as humans we must value human dignity, we must treat other as an end and not as a
In the book, A Practical Companion to Ethics, Anthony Weston shares his exploration in the myriad of ethical issues that we as a population have discussed and disagreed upon every day since the beginning of time. Within A Practical Companion to Ethics Weston describes several different ways that one can be mindful thinkers.
Whip It is a teen movie that hits all the classic markers in a coming-of-age film. Teen angst, feeling like an outsider, falling in love, and of course the importance of friendship. Set in a small Texas town in a foggy timeline that could be the eighties up to the early aughts, Bliss Cavendar is the daughter of a beauty pageant mom and elder sister to a doll like girl. Bliss has been doing beauty pageants for an unknown amount of time, but long enough for her to know she hates it. When the movie opens up it shows pastel girls readying themselves in vanity mirrors while the mother’s make small talk outside. Then the scene shifts to Bliss and friend Pash Amini struggling to wash bright blue dye from her hair. The contrast of these two images sets up the rest of the movie. In a scene halfway through Bliss shouts at her mother, “You really need to stop shoving your [psychotic] idea of fifties womanhood down my throat”. More than just figuring out who you are this movie dives in deep to what femininity means and how it should be portrayed.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
As Sam Duncan wrote “Kant equates morality with acting freely. When we act on the moral law, we act independently of any impulse…” We all know crimes such as murder or stealing are morally wrong, but it is the decision we chose to make as we are faced with the dilemma of acting on a good or bad decision. No one else is to blame at that particular moment since it is the individual right then and there doing good or
This theory judges the morality of an action based on the actions adherence to a set of rules. It is explained as an action is morally right if it is required by duty, and should not conflict with any other action required by another duty. By doing our duty we do what is valuable, this theory focuses on the structure of moral judgment. One should act regardless of your own aims or self-interest. Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973. 16). Kant’s formalism is straight forward, basically in simple terms; would you like it if someone did that to you? No? Then that action is morally wrong. According to Kant, some problems with consequentialism, he believes if we are incline to do what we feel is good trying to produce good consequences then this act is not morally responsible. People differ in what they feel are good consequences therefore we can never truly know and achieve agreement if this action is morally sound. Because Kant does not believe that ethics is based on a desire, need or emotions but is about what’s is right and doing one’s duty (Mizzoni, 2010.
Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as well not make the promise. You must have a duty code inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.
The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.
After all, Kant’s theories rely on his depiction of humans as being rational beings that possess a will and are both influenced by emotions and inclinations. With reason, one is able to discover the principles provided by necessary, obligatory, and universal moral laws “a priori,” with which it is one’s duty to act out of reverence for. Yet, while reason determines the will, or the “power of determining oneself to action,” the inclinations may lead one to falter. Thus, it is when a person acts from their duty as a result of a good will, as my mother does when she donates to charity, that they perform moral acts. When one fails to have the proper action or motivation, like when my roommates stole silverware, one’s will has been influenced by another inclination besides duty. Consequently, all humans possess the same rational capacity and principles of law and duty, but it is simply the effect of inclinations and emotions on the will that creates
As humans, we are all created equal however, are we obligated to act morally? Although each person may have different beliefs on the topic, everyone has their own methods of moral reasoning. According to Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and most philosophers, he believes that we are all obligated to act morally through duty-based ethics. With such a belief, we are obligated to act in accordance with a specific set of maxims regardless of the consequences. Kant developed one of the most influential moral theories that derived from human reason. Throughout the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant sets out to find a better understanding of morality developed from principles rather than experience. He clearly argues why we are obligated to act morally through the importance of duty, moral worth, and the categorical imperative.
Kant believed consequences were irrelevant and an individual should do as they please at that very moment in time. An example would be a person went to their neighbor’s home while they were gone to turn on the heater so when they returned home it was warm. A consequence to turning on their heater is their house burned down, but according to Kant, since your intentions were good you cannot be at fault. Kant also believed each person has dignity and not to treat others as a means, to one’s personals ends (Rich, 2008). In other words, do not treat others as an instrument to achieve a goal. For example, a researcher that is risking the well-being of an individual participating in an experiment for the sake of finding a drug that may save many lives.
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
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...
In this assignment we will be identifying an ethical dilemma an individual has experienced. We will begin with a short introduction of what an ethical dilemma is, moving on to providing brief details of the dilemma an individual has experienced. We will then go on to selecting one ethical theory, to show how it can help an individual understand and deal with the situation when placed within, followed by a conclusion.
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.