Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Immanuel Kant's contributions
A criticism of Kant's moral theory
Kantian view of morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Immanuel Kant's contributions
The Art of Appropriate Actions
Immanuel Kant is noted as one of the most influential German philosophers of his time. He is most recognized for his work on moral philosophy which was published during the late 1700’s. Although Kant’s work challenges many of our moral confidences, acquiring a better understanding of his proposed ethical doctrine will greatly enhance our ability to interpret its meaning. The challenges stem from Kant’s counter intuitive concept that a decision should be made without considering the consequences of the action and concede that conceptually human beings should not be treated as a means to an end, but rather the end in itself (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2004). Therefore, I agree with Kant’s thesis,
…show more content…
The first theme is intentions over consequences and the second is to challenge the universalizability to meet the maxim. An example of the first theme, a good Samaritan works their entire life to solve world hunger but clearly fails. Kant would consider the intent morally acceptable despite the consequences (failure). An example of the second theme, a person goes into a bank and lies on their loan application to ensure they get the loan they need. If everyone told a lie on their loan applications, no one would ever trust a loan application; therefore loan applications would be ineffective. Based on that information, if you lie on a loan application the maxim is not universalizable and therefore considered immoral. These two examples clearly support Kant’s theories and serves as the basis on which my decision to agree was made.
Another Kant premise that challenges my philosophy of moral principles is his approach that a person must be free and willing of bias in order for their action to have meaning. This idea runs counter to how the world sometimes works. For example, the household in which you were raised are tried and true republicans. Are you a republican because of your beliefs or are you a republican because of the environment in which you were raised? So how would you vote come Election Day? It seems almost impossible to not be biased based on your environment, even if very minor
These two examples can demonstrate how each person can use the two formulations of the Categorical Imperative to decide whether a maxim is moral or not. Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel.
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.
...o be an unbearable abuse of supreme authority” or in the face of governmental tyranny. However, Kant also outlines in his other work the importance of moral autonomy, which seems to betray his view of a citizen's duty to obey. As Arntzen states: “by denying a right of resistance even when civil society falls short of the ideal civil society, he maintains that one has a duty to act according to a will that is not one's own, and thereby seems to betray the person's autonomy and dignity he has so strongly asserted in GMS and KpV” (Arntzen: 1996). Arntzen then goes on to state that Kant must allow
In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant argues that human beings inherently have capability to make purely rational decisions that are not based on inclinations and such rational decisions prevent people from interfering with freedom of another. Kant’s view of inherent ability to reason brings different perspective to ways which human beings can pursue morality thus it requires a close analytical examination.
Kant’s moral theory is an action that must be done with a sense of duty if it is to have moral worth. Kant states that life is not all about happiness, nonetheless, it is also about being intent because what Kant does is that he tries to produce happiness to the majority of the community that he is in. Kant’s moral theory has nothing to execute with Kant overall because he believes that an act is moral not by the consequences that occurred from the event, however by the intention that was behind the whole phenomenon. Nothing is good except the good will or the will to obey
Immanuel Kant's deonotological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person's will or intention of acting. Kant's theory can be categorized as a deonotological because "actions are not assessed to be morally permissible on the basis of consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent's will in acting," (Dodds, Lecture 7) therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. Kantianism is based on three principles: maxims, willing, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a "general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it" (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle be universalisable and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone that encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. The second aspect of Kant's theory is willing. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states that, "In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and its impossible for p and q to be the case together" (Feldman, 1999, 203). T...
In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.
Overall, I think that Kant’s first proposition to morality is a good one, it makes sense that our actions should have moral worth because we do them because they are in accordance to duty and we feel we have a duty to even if they go against our desires. I believe the sympathetic person’s actions do not have a moral worth since they do kind things from the natural qualities that they possess of kindness and compassion. People should be encouraged to help their fellow citizens and have such qualities, but doing so does not have moral worth unless it is from the motive of duty, if not it is just in accordance with duty.
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...
... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.
I think that how you get to the end matters more than the end itself. Notice that in my very first example I’ve determined that if your brother murdered your father to claim the throne you’d be thinking that it wasn’t just. That’s because, even though he did something great and the whole court should be proud of him, he got to that high position in a horrible way, so instead of everyone adoring him, they despise him. I have many ethical issues with Kant’s Groundwork.
A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do, however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X.
Kant 's moral theory focuses on the intention of the action, rather than any consequence attached to such action. According to Kant, an individual 's will is what animates the individual 's body, while the duty is the obedience to a moral law. An individual 's will is considered to be strong when it is aligned with duty, even if the consequences harm that individual. For example, a student can fail a test instead of cheating since he or she believes that cheating is wrong. "You should not cheat" is an example of a maxim, a subjective principle that governs action. In order for a maxim to be morally right, it must be a categorical imperative, taken from an individual to a universal scale. In other words, is it rationally possible...
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
In order to evaluate whether one’s actions are moral, we use many moral dilemmas. One of them is Kant’s categorical imperative. This essay presents Kant’s project of categorical imperative. Then, I will explain that rulers should appeal to Kant’s categorical imperative when making foreign policy decision. In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the principles of categorical imperative which are universally valid, good intention and never using people or other states as means to end. The second reason is that if rulers appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy decisions, the world can be more peaceful. Since, wars and conflicts which are caused by bad intention, using other people or states as means for gaining advantages which are not universally valid can be hindered by categorical imperatives. Finally, I will conclude that the Kant’s categorical imperatives are still valid and necessary when rulers are making foreign policy decisions.