Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kantian theory on ethics
Kantian theory on ethics
Kantian theory on ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there …show more content…
is evidence to support that Kant’s theories on human nature within Foundations for the Metaphysic of Morals are valid. First of all, it is evident that Kant’s theories regarding morality are based on the notion that human beings have equivalent rational capacities that may allow them to uncover the principles provided by moral laws. These necessary and universally obligatory moral laws provide the principles for action, in the form of a categorical imperative, “a priori.” A categorical imperative commands without consideration of condition or consequence and is applicable to all. Yet, knowing the principles through reason alone are not sufficient, as one must act in a way that conforms to and is performed for the sake of the law. The motivational factor must come from one’s duty, or “the necessity to act out of reverence for the law,” as it never varies like the universal and unconditional laws. After all, one is to only act on their policies as long as they can will that it be applied universally for all others at all times. It is reason alone that commands one’s will by allowing for actions to be judged objectively necessary by the law and subjectively necessary by one’s duty, independent from any inclination. However, while duty and law are unchanging, the will is still free and susceptible to wrongdoing. Yet, to determine the legitimacy of Kant’s ethical claims, real moral choices were analyzed to ultimately show trends in human behavior. In fact, one trend that presented itself suggests that self-interest and emotion appear to be the biggest perpetrators operating against people’s moral behavior, as seen in the way that I once lied to my mother to ensure her happiness as well as my own. Additionally, it was discovered that immoral acts are often done when one considers them to be correct under certain conditions. This is seen in one stranger’s decision to park in a no parking zone to be closer to a mailbox and when my friends chose to steal silverware from the dining hall, knowing that fees are added into meal plans to account for this. Thus, improper acts were often seen as a result of acting on emotions or inclinations and making exceptions to rules. Thus, in light of the observations gathered on moral choices, Kant’s account of human nature, which underlies his ethical position, is quite valid.
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 …show more content…
discrepancies. Thus, Kant’s notion of human nature, which underlies his moral theories, is credible as it is supported by behavioral observation. Observation of human behavior and ethical choices appear to only support his rationalistic perspective of human nature and add some validity to his notions of law, duty, and will in his account of morality. Yet, as for the instances where one’s duties can be in conflict, it appears that neither the gathered observations nor Kant’s Foundations for the Metaphysic of Morals may supply a sufficient response. Hume’s view regarding what a self or “I” is, along with how it is known is depicted in Treatise on Human Nature is based on his empiricism in reaction to the Cartesian claim that the self is invariable and single being. For instance, to come to know what a self is, he attempts to find the impression with which his idea of himself lies. Yet, he learns that to come from an impression, the self must be invariable, which is not true. One cannot have a direct perception of oneself, but for the “I” to exist, perceptions must not be removed. Thus, the self is nothing more than “a bundle or collection of different perceptions” that are “in a perpetual flux.” Personal identity is a false understanding of successive selves. “Identity depends on the relations of ideas.” The self is not constant and invariant, so it does not exist. Hume’s account of the self has its own strengths and weaknesses. For instance, his perspective is strong in that he takes a more basic and incorrect account of personal identity and postulates a logical philosophical alternative. He introduces the idea regarding a constant succession of selves. Yet, his theory is weak in that it is entirely based on empiricism, which has its flaws as Descartes addresses. Hume doubts metaphysical proposals including the idea of a self, cause and effect with respect to human thought. After all, as in An Enquiry on Human Understanding, Hume is an empiricist that values sensations over thoughts in terms of the force it presents to one’s mind. Ideas are distinguished from impressions, which are “more lively perceptions,” by using sensory organs or when one loves, hates, desires, or wills. Ideas are merely copies of impressions, and the mind simply augments or transposes that provided by senses or experience. This is why in Treatise on Human Nature, he dismisses the idea of the self that is unchanging and simple and proses instead the idea of a succession of selves in “perpetual flux.” He also rejects cause in effect by stating there is merely constant conjunction learned through experience. His empirical views affect the status of metaphysical ideas for him. Hume’s view of the status of metaphysics on human thought can be critiqued as well.
For instance, his view is strong in the way that utilizes empiricism to provide a skeptical insight on causality. It is refreshing to see an alternative perspective such as empiricism after reading Descartes and Leibniz. Yet, his use of empiricism may be his downfall as well, since even he states “simple ideas are not always…derived from the correspondent impressions.” Also, his argument that thought is bounded senses and experiences do not take into account metaphysical concepts like malleability.
Hume’s discussion of God in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding does not explicitly state whether or not God exists, his idea of God is also one based on Him being infinite, good, and intelligent as well. Hume’s discussion of the idea of God, “arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting” His qualities. The idea of God with all his attributes is thus one based on copies of sentiments or feelings. After all, ideas come from sense perception. Yet, one cannot have a sense impression of God, since He is a metaphysical idea. He therefore does not
exist. Hume’s view of the relationship of the outside and inside relationship within An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding differs in that his perspective is based on empiricism. For instance, Hume values sensations over thoughts in terms of the force it presents to one’s mind. Ideas are distinguished from impressions, which are “more lively perceptions,” by using sensory organs or when one loves, hates, desires, or wills. Ideas are merely copies of impressions, and the mind simply augments or transposes that provided by senses or experience. That which comes from outside senses and experience essentially rejects the idea that thought is unbounded. Hume’s view of this inside-outside relationship may be critiqued as well. For instance, his ideas are strong in that provides accreditation for one’s experience. Yet, his use of empiricism may be his downfall as well, since even he states “simple ideas are not always…derived from the correspondent impressions.” Also, his argument that thought is bounded senses and experiences do not take into account metaphysical concepts like malleability.
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
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.
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
This means that our actions are conscious driven and that our intentions are bounded in rationality to fulfill one’s duty. For Kant, morality should be necessary and universal (Kant, 2005: 49) He provides that actions must be universal and be based on a set of moral rules in order for them to be classified as moral or immoral. Reason is a main component of Kant’s argument of morality. Kant’s view of morality is premised on the notion of “good will,” which ultimately ensures that an act complies with moral principles (Kant, 2005: 18). An act will be deemed good depending on the motive or intention behind the act. He suggests that an action can be determined to be moral by using reason to question the intention or motive behind an act. He states that the universal law, “act only on the maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 2005: 161). Furthermore, Kant argues that morality has a sense of duty attached to
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...
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals explores themes of morality and its application to rational beings. Rationality, to Kant, includes a necessary commitment to morality, wherein failing to be moral is simultaneously a failure to be rational. Within this work, Kant proposes a concept that he entitles the “Categorical Imperative”. The Categorical Imperative is essential in the exploration of morality in the rational being, and, as with morality, is dependent solely on reason alone. The Categorical Imperative, as illustrated by Kant, is an unconditional law of morality that must be obeyed in all circumstances, separate from condition or character. As such, the Categorical Imperative serves a supreme principle of morality in
“Relations of ideas are indestructible bonds created between ideas and all logically true statements and matters of fact are concerned with experience and we are certain of matters of fact through cause and effect“(Hume Section IV). This proves that the both the mind and body are one because of the cause and effect. He believes that there are connections between all ideas in the mind, and that there are three different kinds. The first is resemblance that describes looking at a picture then thinking of what it represents in the picture. Then there is contiguity looking at something then thinking of about something different. Then there is the cause and effect of something happening to you and then to imagine the pain of the wound. Once again beginning able to look at something and then create an idea from it only proves that without senses we couldn’t just come up with an idea out of the blue.
Immanuel Kant was born April 22, 1724, to Johann and Anna Kant in Konigsberg, Prussia, known today as Kaliningrad, Russia. He was the fourth child in series of nine. Kant’s parents were devoted followers of Pietism—a revival of piety in the Lutheran Church. Without his family’s connection to the church and the priest’s acknowledgement of Kant’s potential, Kant would never have received a formal education. In turn, this priest had part in molding one of the greatest minds that has held relevance for several centuries. (Biography).
Immanuel Kant, a famous philosopher, is most well known for his everlasting influence in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. From a Pietist working class family, Kant learned early on about the importance of hard work, honesty, cleanliness, and independence. Kant was born in Königsberg, now considered a part of Russia, and attended the University of Königsberg where he grew passionate about philosophy and was greatly influenced by Christian Wolff, G. W. Leibniz, and even Isaac Newton. Immanuel Kant spent his life teaching as a private tutor and a professor at the university. He published scientific works, books, Latin dissertations, and philosophical works. He developed arguments for God’s
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was one of the most influential Western philosophers that contributed to many aspects of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The 18th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant felt as if though philosophy has reached its pivotal point, thus he fashioned a new view of knowledge that claims that both reason and the senses contribute to our knowledge of the world (Velasquez, 2017). His theory emerged from rationalist who claimed that the mind is a source of knowledge of universal laws, combined with the theory of the empiricist who argued that the senses are the only credible source of knowledge. Kant’s theory suggested a new view of knowledge, that suggested that our knowledge of reality comes from reason but its content derives from a person’s senses. Kant named his new view: Transcendental Idealism, also referred to as formalistic idealism.