Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Child development chapter 8
Child development in our society
Morality and its effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Child development chapter 8
In society, morality is defined as the beliefs and ideas of what is right or wrong behaviour. (Can you cite a dictionary?) The teachings of morality also known as moral education is heavily dependent on individuals that have a major impact on one`s life. The teachings usually start from a young age through parents, caregivers and educators in society. Due to their influence on young children`s lives it is their responsibility to make certain that young children will learn to make logical decisions that would contribute in a positive way in society. An ethical theory that would best describe people that influence young children would be Kantian`s ethics. His ethical theory elucidates that morality is when we act based on duty for duty`s sake not for self-interest. For this reason in order to respect the law, a sense of duty to one`s actions is necessary (Kant, 287). Based on this analysis, young children would need Kant`s outlook on morality in order to be sufficient in society. In this paper, I will argue that we as moral agents have a sense of duty to educate young children on how they should act by allowing them to reason and make rational decisions in society. In order to do this, educators which includes parents and caregivers, must teach young children the true purpose of good will based on Kantian ethics. Secondly, educators must instruct young children on how to implement policies, which Kant refers to as maxims, which are universal (Kant, 287). This concept is based on Kant`s principle of universal law. Lastly, based on Kant`s principle of humanity, children would be able to acknowledge that treating others as ends is preferred instead of as mere means. Both principles are a part of what Kant would call the Categorical im...
... middle of paper ...
... positive. Due to their positive expectations, educators should follow the Kantian ethical approach because it reminds young children on what is morally correct and how young children can use that distinction of what is morally right or wrong to reason and make rational decision that lead to a possible outcome in society.
In final analysis, the Kantian ethics criteria shows that we as moral agents are valuable beings and the outlines that through understanding the meaning of good will as well as the categorical imperative individuals would understand how to reason and construct rational decisions that will contribute to our society in a positive manner. Moreover, from Kant’s analysis educators would use this outline as a criterion when educating young children about morality and how our rational decisions towards maxims to create a society that is fair and just.
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.
Critiques of Kantian moralist theory such as Williams believe that Kant’s moral theory is characterized by Impartiality and unresponsiveness to any picky associations to picky person. Abstraction from specific characteristics of an agent is what is believed by the critiques as to be a qualification for a universal moral principle that can apply to similar
Also, another critique is that people would be acting out of moral duty instead of inclination, which is bad. Would you want somebody to do something because they must or because they want to? For example, if you were very sick and your friends came to visit you and they told you they only came because it was their “duty”. That would not feel too good. If we were to follow Kant’s ethics of duty, us people would seem more inhuman since we would only obey absolute rules for duty instead of
In order to act, one must have will, which is the determination of the mind to act. Kant argues that we need good will because it is not only good in itself but to develop it, we also must have reason behind it. According to Kant, one’s personal will is only good if they are motivated by nothing other than duty. Kant argues that to fulfill our moral obligations, we must act from duty and offers three essential principles. The first proposition states that an action must be done from duty in order to have moral worth. Therefore we must act from duty rather than act in accordance with duty because then our action would not be morally worthy. The second proposition, maxims, states that an action done from duty has moral worth in the maxim that guides it. Kant clearly proposes that an action must be done for its own sake instead of the sake for anything else, “an action from duty h...
From this idea of “a priori” concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the notion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified good is the “good will”, even if its efforts bring about a not necessarily good result. A “good will” is good because of the willing that is involved. Two main implications arise with this idea of the “good will”. The first implication is moral actions cannot have impure motivations. There are many impure motivations but Kant tends to focus mainly on the motives of the pursuit of happiness and self-preservation. Second, moral actions cannot be based on the speculations of the probable results. This action is not good in itself but good because it brought about a more desirable outcome. Thus, Kant arrives at the conclusion that for an action to be considered to have genuine moral worth its motive must be that of dutifulness to moral law.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
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.
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.
Kant elucidate the meaning of human good by talking about three qualities: power, pleasure and dignity. By reading each of the philosopher’s text individually, the reader is able to recognize which quality is most imperative to each philosopher. Additionally, each philosopher illuminates the importance of that certain good and provides a feasible reason for their choosing by presenting general ideas that enables the reader to gain a meticulous understanding of their subjective meaning of each good and its importance.
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...
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.
Overall, Kantian ethics are based on duty, and the duty is to perform universally good actions. For this form of ethics, good will is defined as the good. Kant highlights that “a good will is good…[because]
Emmanuel Kant (hereinafter “Kant”) believes that Ethics is categorical and states that our moral duties are not dependent on feelings but on reason (Pojman and Vaughn 239). According to Kant, there is one good thing that comes without qualification – a good will. Any other act done as only being good with qualification, and only a good will is worthy of happiness. A good will is done because it is one’s duty, not someone just doing a duty. The expected consequences of an act of good will are morally neutral, and therefore irrelevant to moral discussion. The only objective basis for moral value would be the rationality of the good will, expressed in recognition of moral duty. Kant believes that our moral duties are unconditional, universally
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).
Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who made great contributions with his work on the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant’s interest with metaphysics left him in the company of Aristotle, who had the original work on metaphysics. Kant’s goal in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals was to find and make the supreme principal of morality. Kant covers several concepts in his work on metaphysics, some of the key concepts in his work are good will, moral worth, and imperatives. When it comes to good will Kant believes that “Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will” 1. In the next key concept, moral worth, Kant believes that actions are only morally right depending on their motives, “an action done not from inclination but from duty” 2 is morally right according to Kant. Kant’s imperatives are broken down into two types, those being hypothetical and categorical. A hypothetical imperative is an “action that is good to some purpose, possible or actual” 3. A categorical imperative “directly commands a certain conduct without making its condition some purpose to be reached by it” 4. From these concepts you can tell that Kant is a perfect world philosopher who thinks that all humans are rational beings, who have preeminent good in them, and should always strive to be their best selves.