Kant's Categorical Argument
Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the late 18th
century and was arguably one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He
came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to the ontological
theory. Many people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life.
The topic I shall be discussing is Kant's categorical imperative and
the utilitarian's greatest happiness idea. There are significant
problems with both ideas. It is apparent however, that alternatives to
these two conflicting schools of thought have been offered. One
popular criticism of utilitarianism is that it deals too much with the
consequences of one's actions, and the same for Kant except that it
focuses too much upon intentions. Therefore I shall round up in part B
of my essay how both theories fail as moral guideline on how to live
life, and look at morality, which I feel are imperative in order to
live the good life. During part A I shall be explaining Kant’s
categorical argument in great detail.
For some time now philosophers have discussed the possibility of the
existence of right and wrong. The issues of morality and ethical
decision-making play a massive role in human actions and we are
constantly deciding whether or not the choices we make are 'moral'. As
an intuitive species when presented with a choice we are continuously
bugged with the question of: "Which alternative should I choose and
what reason should be behind my choice?" This is the tricky question
that Kant tries to answer. In fact for this question Kant states a
universal formula, which is the categorical imperative. This means by
which all acts can b...
... middle of paper ...
... is that someone’s intentions out
rule the consequences that result from any actions.
As I have shown from the case above. The trolley situation for
example, where the brakes stop functioning and the only way out is to
either kill five workers on the track or one to the side. Kant’s
answer would be not to steer away from the five workers because it
would be unfair to use the one to the side as a means to save the
others' lives. This is a tough case no matter how you look at it. The
other view seems like a better answer, sacrifice one for the greater
number, but regardless of how you look at it, this case is no win. The
main problem with Kant’s ideas is that it deals with intentions, and
while they are important in distinguishing one's actions, they are not
the only factor in question when placed with life's dilemmas.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
When situations arise and people die or become ill a value has to be placed on their life to determine if they are going to be healed or if their family is going to be compensated for their loss. The value of life has a variety of interpretations based on the approach a person decides to take. Some people think of human life with an economic point of view which can led to certain deceased citizens receiving more money for accidents than others. The economic view also says that if a surgery is going to cost the government to much money then the person who needs the surgery should not get it. On the other hand, some people look at it emotionally and say that everyone should get an equal amount of money for incidents that occur. People who look
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.
When someone finds themself in a life-or-death situation, their judgement becomes clouded. People can make a decision that they may regret in the long run, but it has saved their life. Most of the time, these people do things that they don’t know enough about- leading to clouded judgement in life-or-death situations. They do not inform themselves as much as they should, and they decide to do something that would put them in threat of danger. People take risks every day, they know what these risks are- but they still choose to go through with their actions. People in life-or-death situations should be held accountable for their actions because they have control over putting themselves in these types of situations that have any risk.
Categorical imperative is Kant's expression for the ethical law. It should give an approach to us to assess good actions and to make moral judgments. It is not summon to perform particular activities. It is basically a formal method by which to assess any activity about which may be ethically applicable. Kant along these lines utilized this to infer that ethical obligation is a commitment tying of every ethical operator without a special case. He accordingly highlight the plans for the ethical laws which are the three unique methods for saying what it is, and these include: dependably act in a manner that you could will that the adage of your demonstration turn into a general law, dependably act in a manner that you treat mankind, whether in
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
In the Second Analogy, Kant argues that we must presuppose, a priori, that each event is determined to occur by some preceding event in accordance with a causal law. Although there have been numerous interpretations of this argument, we have not been able to show that it is valid. In this paper, I develop my own interpretation of this argument. I borrow an insight offered by Robert Paul Wolff. In Kant's argument, our need to presuppose that the causal determination of each event rests not upon our need to impose a 'necessary' and 'irreversible' temporal order upon representations of the states of an object, as Kant is usually interpreted, but upon our need to generate a comprehensive representation that includes a certain a priori conception of events in the world around us. Although the argument I attribute to Kant is valid, it cannot compel the Humean skeptic to accept the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event: Kant has not successfully responded to Hume in the Second Analogy.
death, because it's wrong to commit suicide, it is also wrong to have assisted suicide and
"One can regard the history of the human species, in the large, as the realization of a hidden plan of nature to bring about an internally, and for this purpose, also an externally perfect national constitution, as the sole state in which all of humanity's natural capacities can be developed (36)." Kant is explicit in his notion of human history: for him it is the development toward the telos, the end in which mankind finally exists in a state conducive to its proper development. Specifically, history entails a constant antagonism of man between his desire for total freedom and his need for society, between the necessity of a human master and the moral crisis it represents, and between one society and its neighbors.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
The question is, what would be morally justifiable to do in such unfortunate
In the beginning of my paper, on page two, it was suggested that I should have wrote “I will argue” instead of “it will be argued”. I do not agree with this suggestion as I feel that using a personal pronoun in the beginning of my paper would be inconsistent with the rest of my paper. As well, it was also suggested that I should have included the reason for why I chose my thesis. However, in my thesis it states clearly that I believe it is unethical for healthcare providers to interfere with competent patients and their rights to make decisions about their own medical treatments. Next, on the third page, when I state “However, this would eliminate patient choice regarding their care”, the grader wrote “this is a consequence -> Kant is concerned
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”.
Human life is full of meaning. As humans, we assign value to many things. However, what happens when we assign a specific value to a human life? This is the issue being presented in the article, “What is a Life Worth,” by Amanda Ripley. The government is determining a monetary value to a human life, and it does not appeal to the masses. There are many problems with the cold calculation, and most people cannot see the other side of the numbers. The economic value of a human life is calculated based on the income the person was receiving, but when the check is given to a loved one of a small amount, the compensation is misinterpreted as an overall value of the human life. The true value of a human life should not be combined with the monetary value that is determined by the government, or the value of life would be worth very little.
Life threatening situations can be some of the most difficult situations that one can go through. During these types of situations moral lines can be blurred in such ways that what one may think is right for that situation is not actually a moral solution that one should do. In the case of the Heinz dilemma what is verses what isn’t moral is a hard decision to make. In the case of Heinz I feel personally that there were two wrong-doings that were done in order that one right-doing could be achieved. The shop owner was in the wrong for over pricing a drug and refusing to help Mr. Heinz ailing wife, but at the same time Mr. Heinz was in the wrong for stealing from the drug dealer. At the same time he was only forced into that situation due to