More handpicked essays just for you.
Critique of Kant's categorical imperative
Critique of Kant's categorical imperative
Critique of Kant's categorical imperative
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Immanuel Kant argues that the supreme principle of morality must be a standard of rationality that he insisted the Categorical imperative. "end at the place from which we set out at the beginning, namely with the concept of an unconditionally good will" (AK 4:437). He ensured that the categorical imperative are characterized as being objective, rational and of important and unconditional principle that must be followed by everyone despite of the individual natural desires or the inclinations people may have to the contrary. Therefore, according to Kant, the immoral actions are irrational because they violate the categorical imperative principle. According to me every parent wants the best for his or her child. One of the most effective ways to protect your child is to make sure …show more content…
Kant would definitely agree with vaccination of children as a moral right. According to him, "there is nothing it is possible to think of anywhere in the world, or indeed anything at all outside it, that can be held to be good without limitation, excepting only a good will." (AK 4:393). His Idea of ‘good’ goes hand in hand with the notion of a good person. The idea of vaccination is done to benefit a child and the family at large therefore the good will is brought to surface. Kant believes in the humanity formula which involves the respect of persons for whatever reason it is that could be essential for humanity. There is always something wrong in treating people like instruments with no other value beyond this. Kant would appreciate the idea of vaccination which would lead to the rise of a healthier generation. This shows respect to humanity at large because an action can only be good if the principle behind it is duty to the moral law. People against child vaccination do not have the moral goodwill in them .They want to treat people like instruments with no long term
There is a war going on against parents that refuse to vaccinate their children. It is coming from the government that makes and enforces laws requiring parents to vaccinate their children, hostile parents of vaccinated children, and doctors that refuse to see unvaccinated children. They are concerned about the potential health risk unvaccinated children pose to the public. These parents aren’t lunatics but are concerned parents that are trying to make the best choice for their children. In fact, these parents aren’t fighting alone; a number of pediatricians and medical experts are apart of this crusade and have taken the lead. They will tell you there is an agenda, “Vaccine manufacturers, health officials, medical doctors, lead authors of important studies, editors of major medical journals, hospital personnel, and even coroners, cooperate to minimize vaccine failings, exaggerate benefits, and avert any negative publicity that might frighten concerned parents, threaten the vaccine program and lower vaccination rates.” 4
This is drawn directly from Kant, particularly when it takes the form of a person ignoring a rule he has made for himself. Foot says, however, that “the man who rejects morality because he sees no reason to obey its rules can be convicted of villainy but not of inconsistency” (161). Immoral people are bad people, not incoherent people or people that dissolve in the face of their own irrationality. Then it is not irrationality that makes a categorical imperative special.
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 ...
Susie O’Brien starts of the article by asking the question, “HOW many dead babies will it take to make anti-vaccinators wake up and realise they are killing other people’s precious, loved infants with their ignorance and selfishness?” Straight away the reader understands that the author is strongly against those who don’t want to vaccinate their children. In the past six years 12 babies have died from
Vaccination was first introduced globally for small pox and later on extended to other communicable diseases which are now known as vaccine preventable disease. Vaccination is beneficial both for individuals and community. This bring us to the ethical dilemma - Vaccination of a healthy child with the intention of protecting both the individual child and the community at the same time exposing the child to the theoretical risk of exposure to disease products whether live, attenuated or killed. There was a time when people never questioned the government or their physicians. Now because of more public awareness and accessibility to medical information, they are questioning the safety aspects of vaccines.
Mumps, Measles, Whooping Cough, Smallpox, Polio and, Diphtheria are all deadly diseases that were once a death sentence to children and adults around the world, but there is something that can help combat these fatal diseases. Vaccinations can change the course of these lethal diseases, but some families are still refusing to vaccinate the future of the world. Vaccinations can not only be beneficial to the child itself but to rest of humanity as well. There is evidence that goes against false claims bashing vaccination and the positive effects of vaccination overrule all of the negative. Vaccination can have a positive effect on the world due to its life-saving properties, effects on humanity and the extensive amount of safety and care that
Vaccines work. They have kept infants healthy and have saved millions of lives for more than 50 years. Most childhood vaccines are 90% to 99% effective in preventing disease so why would you keep such an advantage away from your child? “ Vaccines are made with a tiny amount of dead or weakened germs. They help the immune system learn how to protect itself against disease. Vaccines are a safe and effective way to keep your child from getting very sick from the real disease.” (healthycanadians.gc.ca).When the word vaccination comes to mind the first thing that should come to our minds is life saving, helpful, and beneficial. Unfortunately not all people would think positively when it comes to vaccinations, they think of the worst that could happen. I understand they want to know the cons to getting the vaccine for their infant, but information can show you that pros outweigh the cons. Vaccinations can not only protect an infant but it goes as far as saving their lives. Society has a strong influence on people 's decisions. In this case society and parental beliefs get in the way of infants well beings.
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Overall, I think that Kant’s first proposition to morality is a good one, it makes sense that our actions should have moral worth because we do them because they are in accordance to duty and we feel we have a duty to even if they go against our desires. I believe the sympathetic person’s actions do not have a moral worth since they do kind things from the natural qualities that they possess of kindness and compassion. People should be encouraged to help their fellow citizens and have such qualities, but doing so does not have moral worth unless it is from the motive of duty, if not it is just in accordance with duty.
Kant’s way of determining morality of actions is quite different from other philosophers, and many find it extremely hard to grasp or implausible. The central concept of his basic test for morality found in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical imperative. “The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative”(Kant, 24). In other words, an imperative is something that a will ought or shall do because the will is obligated to act in a way in which conforms to moral law. Imperatives can also be referred to as the supreme principle of morality.
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
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”.
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).
Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states, “in terms of the form of universality (act such that your maxim could become universal law).” Kant’s first formulation and theory holds on the assumption that reason alone can distinguish between a moral act and immoral act. His first formulation also depends on the basis of a maxim. A maxim, in Kant’s formulation, acts as a recipe of how to conduct your self morally. Kant’s first formulation serves as direction and guidance for behavior in certain situations. A maxim is accepted when everyone can follow it without creating a contradiction. Kant defines a contradiction as a maxim that makes human relationships impossible to engage in. He provides several examples of what he refers
Those who choose not to vaccinate their children are endangering the health of those unable to be vaccinated themselves, such as infants, pregnant people, and the immunocompromised, by jeopardizing community immunity. According to vaccine.gov, a federal government website managed by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, community immunity or “herd immunity” occurs when “a critical portion of the community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak” (Community Immunity). An infographic featured in an NPR article entitled “How Vaccine Fears Fueled the Resurgence of Preventable Diseases” illustrated the rise in measles cases in Western Europe and of pertussis (whooping cough) cases in the U.S (Doucleff). In the first eight months of 2014, there were eighteen measles outbreaks, and six hundred cases of measles. This is incredibly dangerous because outbreaks give these diseases the opportunity to evolve and become resistant to vaccines, putting even vaccinated children at risk (Harmon). Parents making the decision not to vaccinate are doing so out of a place that all parents share: a desire to keep their children healthy. However, these anti-vaxxers are basing their decision not on