Chapter 2. Kant’s Concept of Right. In this chapter I will explain Immanuel Kant concept of what is right and how the categorical imperative plays an important role in his moral philosophy. The word “right” (recht or Recht in German), as it is used in Kant’s political writings, has at least three closely related meanings. First, “right” is an adjective denoting a property of a certain set of actions: “right actions.” Second, “right” is a noun used to refer to an individual entitlement to engage in some action without interference, for example, “a right to practice my religion.” Finally, “right” can refer to a system of justice as a whole. What follows is a brief description of these three senses of “right,” and of the relationships between them. Kant’s `Universal Principle of Right’ uses “right” in the first sense is to denote a property of actions. Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a universal law. If my action is right by this standard, Kant argues, then “whoever hinders me in it does me wrong, for this hindrance (resistance) cannot coexist with freedom in accordance with a universal law.” Kant therefore believed that we each have a right (in the second sense) to engage in any action that is right (in the first …show more content…
Always act in such a way that you could will that the maxim of your act become a Universal Law. This is the requirement of Universalizablity (everyone could act the same way). 2. Always act in such a way that you treat Humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another as an end in itself and never merely as a means. Requirement of Human Dignity (don't just use
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Johnson, R. (2013). Kant’s moral philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Zalta, E. (Ed.). Retrieved online from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/kant-moral/
Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain this, he goes into depth on the difference between hypothetical imperatives and Categorical Imperative, two different formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and a few examples. According to Kant, there are two types on imperatives, categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. The Categorical Imperative is based on relation and not by means, which hypothetical imperatives are based on.
This is known as the categorical imperative and it is “Kant’s test for right and wrong” (book 115). There are two forms of the categorical imperative that help formulate if an act is considered a moral obligation. To help grasp a better understanding on the matter, let’s start off by recalling that categorical means unconditional and applies to all persons, not just individuals. Therefore, categorical imperatives are universal. This brings us to Kant’s first form of the categorical imperative which states, “Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law” (book 116). In other words, whatever you wish to act on make sure that you would do it again and that you would want everyone else to do it as well. For example, suppose you decided to steal a candy bar because you didn’t have money, but you were hungry. Now what would happen if everyone stole when they didn’t have money? Would you want this act to become a universal law? How are we supposed to decide when a law should become a universal practice? According to Kant, a law can only be universal if it is noncontradictory. In the stealing example, the law would become contradictory because if everyone stole, then no one would have money and therefore if you wanted to buy something you couldn’t. If everyone stole, then taking items would no longer be considered stealing and therefore you could not steal if you wanted to. Therefore stealing fails the test of Kant’s categorical imperative and is not considered morally correct.
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.
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
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 rights theory, according to Kant. He believes that moral principles are universal, and that all rational human beings are expected to conform to moral reasoning. Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals.... ... middle of paper ... ...
The philosophy of rights has been a perennial subject of discussion not only because it is embedded in the intellectual tradition and political practices of many countries but also because it exhibits deep divisions of opinion on fundamental matters. Even a cursory survey of the literature on rights since, say, the time of the Second World War would turn up a number of perplexing questions to which widely divergent answers have been given: What are rights? Are rights morally fundamental? Are there any natural rights? Do human rights exist? Are all the things listed in the UN's Universal Declaration (of 1948) truly rights? What are moral rights? Legal rights? Are basic moral rights compatible with utilitarianism? How are rights to be justified? What is the value of rights? Can infants have rights, can fetuses have them, or future generations, or animals? And so on.
28 Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law. An Exposition of the Fundamental Principles of Jurisprudence as the Science of Right, quoted in Rommen, 88.
Johnson, Robert, Johnson,. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is “act only in a way the maxim of which can be consistently willed as a universal law of nature.” This formulation in principle has as its supreme law, “always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will” and is the only condition under which a will can ever come into conflict with itself. The “universalizability test” is one meaning of the first formulation. This test has five steps which are, first formulate a maxim that holds sacred your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents. And third, think whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by the law of nature. The fourth test is to ask yourself whether in this world you could, rationally will to act on your maxim. With five if you could then, your action is morally permissible. An example of the first formulation of the categorical imperative would be lying. “I will lie for personal benefit.” So lying is the action and the motivation is to get what you desire and together they form the maxim.
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Immanuel Kant." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 404-16. Print.
What makes actions right? For some philosophers it is their consequences, like the pleasure or happiness that they produce. However for a deontologist like Immanuel Kant, rightness is the action itself and the obligation to perform it. His ethics is a theory of how a person should act, the actual action and morality of the action. It entails that as long as a person acts in a moral way then the consequences of the actions do not matter. “For Kant, doing the right thing is not a matter of one’s character or disposition or circumstance – all of which are or might be beyond one’s control. Instead, it is the matter of duty, acting out of respect for the moral law.” (Stangroom, J. & Garvey, J. 2005, p.79) Moral Laws are a system of guidelines for controlling human behaviour; like society laws. The Ten Commandments set by Moses are moral laws with the commands of a divine being, moral laws can be a set of universal rules that everyone should abide by. Kant argues that: “The moral law cannot be hypothetical in nature, cannot be of the form, ‘if you want such and such, do so...
Rights are generally considered to be a given, particularly those of the legal/ moral variety. These legal rights refer to the rights “ which are necessarily enforceable because they exist in law” (Vincent, 2012: 136), these laws that govern us are also referred to as ‘positive’ rights. Moral rights are the things we believe we have justifiable claim to but may/may not be upheld by the law, as not all are “codified in law”(Vincent, 2012: 136). Rights are further considered as “entitlements that belong to all human beings simply because they are human” (Nussbaum, 1997: 273), this ties in with natural rights as unlike those of the utilitarian variety, the group does not thrive at the cost of the individual, simply because they have more followers.
The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable.