Student Name
Professor name
Course Number
Date
Q1(a)
Jeremy Bentham’s effort to make the ethical decision making scientific was by making the idea of good or happiness a purely quantifiable hedonistic calculus. Bentham argues that if the idea of ‘good’ is a corollary of happiness then there must be a way to determine the quantity of that happiness as a number. Since human beings act as to maximize their utility for pleasure and try to avoid pain in all their dealings, therefore they act in such a way as to make choices which render more pleasure and reduce pain. Although, not knowing, yet people make choices by quantifying the results of their made choices in terms of pleasure and pain. Therefore, it is possible to make ethical decisions on
…show more content…
Since categorical imperative is based on the idea of universal maxims and free will of all the individuals who must act according to the rule that one should only act as if one would like to his action become a universal law itself. Therefore, Kant’s categorical imperative is not a subjective position.
Kant’s categorical imperative has two components in it namely good will and acting in such a way that the action has an ability to become a universal law. So, first, we analyze his notion of good will and then we will move towards the action
…show more content…
In the realm of morality, good will is the most important of all the virtues because it lies at the core of moral actions and all others become worthless and harmful if the “will “ of an individual is not “good”. For the ‘will’ part, there has to be autonomy (acting freely as the person wants to act and decides himself take an action) and not the heteronomy (in which others decide how an individual should act). For Kant, good will is the individual thinks to act in a certain way and since every person has this ability, therefore, everyone is a person and can a free person can decide for himself whatever he wants to do. Goodwill is equivalent to a good person who acts in a good manner. Thus every person should nurture his good will in order to become good. For example, if a person has a lot of wealth but he has not a good will, he will spend his wealth, not in moral manners but to follow the bad or evil by spending it in a lavish way which leads to the moral degeneration of individual and the whole society. Hence, good will leads to good
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.
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
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 ...
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.
Kant conveys his beliefs by introducing the idea of a moral law. He believes there is a moral law that is to be upheld by everyone. The moral law is an unconditional principle that defines the standards of right action. Good will is a form of moral law because it’s a genuine attitude behind an action. Anything that is naturally good is morally good which sums up to be good will. Actions of good will do the right thing for the reason of simply being the right thing to do. There is no qualification, benefactor or incentive its good will and no personal gain, inclination, or happine...
The categorical imperative is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
However, Kant’s moral philosophy view is not without its problems. This is because the good will is not always inherently good without being qualified despite what Kant may claim. This can be seen as even if a person is an altruist who always tries to do their duty they can end up generating misery instead of pleasure. For example, say that you are going out and stealing from the rich to give to those less fortunate. In doing this you are only trying to help people and follow a duty to aid your fellow man, and it does not matter what consequences you may face due to your actions as you are supposed to have a good will even if it will get you into trouble. For a more extreme example say you are hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany. The
...count the good of an activity. If the activity can be applied unanimously to all men, then the activity would clearly be deemed as good. I think Kant would compare the hypothetical and categorical imperatives to Aristotles theory that doing virtuous acts continually leads to the greatest good, eudaimonia.
Kant explores the good will which acts for duty’s sake, or the sole unconditional good. A good will is not good because of any proposed end, or because of what it accomplishes, but it is good in itself. The good will that is good without qualification contains both the means and the end in itself. People naturally pursue the good things in life and avoid the bad. Kant argues that these good things are either means to a further end or good ends in and of themselves.
Kant believes the morality of our action doesn’t depend on the consequences because consequences are beyond our control. According to him, what determines the morality of action is the motivation behind the action and that is called will. Kant states that there is anything “which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will” (7). He suggests other traits such as courage, intelligence, and fortunes and possessions such as fortune, health, and power are not good in themselves because such traits and possessions can be used to accomplish bad things if the actions are not done out of goodwill. Thus, the good motivation is the only good that is good in itself. It is the greatest good that we can have. Then, the question that arises is how do we produce good will? Kant claims that our pure reason
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.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
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.
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”.
Bentham devised The Greatest Happiness Principle that states “that actions are immoral if they are not the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected; only the action that appears to maximise the happiness of all the people likely to be affected is the morally right action.” Bentham used his happiness principle to help decide how legal matters would go and created the Hedonic Calculus which was a way to calculate the amount of pleasure that would be derived from an action. There were multiple factors that were taken into account when using the Hedonic calculus but generally which ever decision yielded the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people would be the decision