In life, from an early age, we are taught the notion of right and wrong. These teachings can come from our parents, society, culture, or religion. Overall, what determines a choice we make to be right or wrong streams from what Immanuel Kant refers to in his writing as one's “duty” (10). Duty, according to Kant, is the way we act based on a set of guidelines we intend to follow and without it, our choices would not have any ethical value(10). Kant also states that “An action done from duty doesn’t get its value from moral purpose, but from the maxim, it involves” (9). By this Kant is saying that the outcome of any situation doesn’t indicate whether it is morally right or wrong, but the action does. This is why Kant’s view is the foundation …show more content…
Although Kant’s theory does contain flaws it still has some points that make sense and in certain situations, one should always do one's duty. One should always do one's duty when it comes to abiding by the law because that is what is socially acceptable and when you avoid following duty in this sense you are becoming deviant to society. Therefore, if you want to remain what others would consider a morally right person you must obey these laws. On a smaller scale such as lying to your children for their benefit Deontology would seem very irrelevant. Parents lie to their children all the time and it is usually to help them. In some cases, these lies protect children, ease fears, or even bring them happiness. Like stated before Mill would support my argument, but even his theory does have flaws. All in all, no philosophical theory is exactly the perfect one to live by. Kant’s theory itself is very black and white. For him, there is only a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things, but the real world is not black and white. Many of the situations we face in life will lead us to not follow what our quote-unquote duty is and that is perfectly okay. Telling a little lie here and there is not going to make you a morally wrong or bad person. Furthermore, it is easy to see why one does not always have to do one's duty based on the faults in Deontology and real
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.
Actions are either classified as right or wrong with no allowance for a gray area. Furthermore, the strict guidelines tend to conflict with commonly accepted actions. For example, lying is always considered morally wrong--even a “white lie.” Therefore, one must not lie even if it does more good. In our society although individuals accept lying as being morally wrong, “white lies” have become an exception.
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
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.
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
Using Kantian philosophy a lie is always immoral and wrong, no matter what the situation is. Kantian ethics establishes the idea that good will be based on the action itself rather than outcome or any inclination one may have to perform an act could be good will.
Philosopher Immanuel Kant has a completely different perspective on the moral righteousness of lying. Kant believes it is unethical and sinful to lie no matter what situation presents itself. “Kant finds it especially offensive, contrasting the ‘dim, moles’ eyes fixed on experience’ with the ‘eyes belonging to a being that was made to stand erect and look at the heavens’. Kant believes in the ideology of promise keeping and if you break your promise, it is considered
...to lie on occasion as result of better results or to not harm the other person. For example, if a teenager does not tell his parents he snuck out and drove their car then he avoids punishment if he simply says he never went out. Also, if a girl does not like the dress her friend is wearing but still says she does, then she lies for the benefit of her friend rather than causing harm. Although people still lie, they are still able to act morally in accordance with universal law. Overall, I believe it depends on the circumstances and individual on whether or not humans are obligated to act morally because morality is for the sake of the individual while obligation would be for the sake of others or the community. As a result, rather than a moral “obligation” to act, it should be replaced by desire so that people would want to act a certain way instead of feeling forced.
Although it is considered wrong to tell lies, it seems that literature has offered us situations where telling lies isn’t necessarily bad. Of course, lying often has a tragic outcome, but not always for the person or people who told the lie or lies. Oftentimes, these unfortunate outcomes are directed at the person about whom the lie was told. Furthermore, these stories have explained that dishonesty can result in success for both the liar and the target. Maybe we have been teaching the wrong values to our children.
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
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.
Kant viewed lying as a moral atrocity and there were never any reasons to lie. In fact, Kant believed “ that lying under any circumstances is “the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being.”” (Rachels 2016 p139) The second most important was Kent’s rule is based on no exceptions. In Kent’s eye’s if we accept lying even as an exception, we then embrace it as natural law and conclude lying is okay for any and all reasons. If people accepted lying as natural law, then no one would take anyone’s word seriously, thus creating a cycle of disorder throughout society and the cycle in which society operates.
We lie all the time, lying is not something new to our culture. We lie to our parents, we lie to our friends, we even lie to our significant other, but why do we do it? There is not one set reason on why we lie but they can vary from an insignificant reason to something more nefarious. A good operational definition of a lie is “A lie is a false statement to a person or group made by another person or group who knows it is not the whole truth, intentionally.” (Freitas-Magalhães) We have been raised to know that lying is usually a bad thing, and it’s better to tell the truth, not to mention the circumstances get exponentially worse if you are caught lying. No one wants to be labeled as a liar, or untrustworthy. This may sound unorthodox but I personally think lying is perfectly fine; depending on the situation. If you have a prima-facie duty to be dishonest it’s perfectly acceptable. Ross says a prima facie duty or obligation is an actual duty. “One’s actual duty is what one ought to do all things considered.” (Carson) I’m not the only one who finds this too be true. Ross would also agree with me, He says “Lying is permissible or obligatory when the duty not to lie conflicts with a more important or equal important prima facie duty.” (Carson) As I was doing research on this topic I did read one extremely compelling argument on why we ought not to lie. Aristotle basically said a person who makes a defense for lying could never be trusted. (King.)
He states that in no case should you lie (Bennett 2). What Kant focuses on is deontology, this focuses on duty-based ethics. What duty-based ethics consists of is, doing what you should do for the right reasons, your moral obligations (Bennett 2). Sometimes people will do something they know is right to do but, for the wrong reasons. Someone may save someone’s life because they know they will get money out of it while they should be doing it to save that person with or without a reward. Kant believes that lying is wrong and immoral for anyone in any case, no excuses. Kant believes in a good will (Bennett 5). He believes that happiness cannot be achieved through a bad will. A good will must consist of truthfulness, doing the right thing and doing it because you care to help. Kant believes that along with having a good will, you should be morally good. Being “morally good” has to do with following the moral law. Under any circumstance, a person should never corrupt the moral law (Bennett 2). Everyone should live their life knowing and living by this moral law, never making mistakes and always making the right decisions for the right reasons. With the scenario given, telling a small lie to a friend, Kant believes that lying is against the moral law. Bentham wanted to optimize happiness, in that case lying was the answer. Whereas, Kant says that people deserve more than that, each person deserves to know the truth and should
In an excerpt by Sissela Bok, Rejecting All Lies : Immanuel Kant, Bok explains Kant’s argument that lying is a given right to another person. In the excerpt it argues that ,“Truthfulness in statements which cannot be avoided is the formal duty of an individual to everyone, however great may be the disadvantage.” Many people lie to avoid a disadvantage for themselves but Kant has a different view. Basically what Immanuel Kant is saying the truth should always be told no matter what situation or how big the conscience. This is because it is our duty to proved the truth to