Immanuel Kant Morality

In section two of Immanuel Kants Ground for the Metaphysics of Morals he begins by stating that only actions that are made out of a sense of duty — and no other reason — can be considered moral actions. But he also believes that it is impossible for anyone to know if they are only acting out of duty or if they are also being motivated by self interest. Only a being like God could know our true intentions. Kant believes that morality is a priori, which means it’s based on reason rather than experiences. We cannot derive moral laws from experiences because experiences vary widely from person to person and in order to apply to everyone they must be universal and objective. He gives the example of God as the ideal moral being. We know of his

30). An example he gives is that people who borrow money should only do so if they fully intend on paying back the money, because if people all over the world didn’t pay back their debts no one would ever loan out money. With the Categorical Imperative we must always follow the rules and never make any exceptions for ourselves. Kant also believes that we should treat all rational beings as ends in themselves. This is the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the Principle of Humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as end and never simply as a means” (pg. 36). This means that we should respect ourselves and others because we are all capable of reason. We shouldn’t take advantage of others. His example is that when we lie about repaying our debts we are using others as a means to our end, which in this case is having more money. All humans have intrinsic value and must be treated as ends rather than a simple tool used towards achieving selfish

An example of this moral dilemma is the “killer-at-the-door” scenario where the only way to protect a persons life is by lying to a killer and saying that this person isn’t home. On the one hand, if we choose to lie and protect the person, we are violating the maxim that forbids lying; and if we choose to tell the truth and let the killer find the person in hiding, then we are accomplices in murder and violate the maxim that treasures human life. There is no right answer in this situation, no matter what we choose we are violating the Categorical Imperative and acting