More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant and the categorical imperative
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals Immanuel Kant
Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals Immanuel Kant
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant and the categorical imperative
Kant states in the Preface of Groundwork, his best known work on moral philosophy, that “The present groundwork is, however, nothing more than the search for and establishment of the supreme principle of morality, which already constitutes an enterprise whole in its aim and to be separated from every other moral investigation. (Groundwork 4:392)” Seeking for this supreme principle of morality, the ultimate unity, Kant introduces the principle of categorical imperative(CI). The formulations of the CI are threefold. First, and probably the most straightforward, is the formula of universal law: “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.(G 4:421)” Second, is the formula of
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 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 ...
Philosophy is the study of knowledge, reality, existence and thought processes. Immanuel Kant from Prussia, (currently Russia) for whom was influential during the Enlightenment period; and John Stuart Mill from Great Britain whom was present during the Romantic era, explored ideas that they believed would create a more fair and just society, by trying to legislate morality. Morality cannot be legislated because it is a concept of right and wrong created by each different religion, region and culture; issues are not black and white.
The categorical imperative is an idea used to redefine ideas of morality (Kant 30). Morality is a priori; it is what we ought to do or ought not to do regarding an action (Hromas). "We know killing is wrong so we ought not to do it; we know this without experience" (Hromas). Morality is when everyone follows moral actions in agreement with the moral law and an action is not performed with a desire to feel a certain way (Kant’s Ethics). Immorality is when everyone follows the law except for one person (Hromas). Kant provides the example of a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper is to keep a fixed price for everyone so that the inexperienced shoppers do not get taken advantage of, such as a child (Kant 13). However, this action was done by the shopkeeper "for a self-interested purpose" (Kant 13). If the shop keeper did not keep a fixed price for everyone then word would spread about his not being fair to all customers and therefore no one will go into his store and he will go out of business. Another example is a street vendor in New York City. I am given a hotdog by a street vendor and am told it cost three dollars, but I only have one dollar and the vendor still sells me the hotdog for one dollar. A woman behind me asks for a hotdog and the vendor charges her three dollars. This vendor is not being fair to all of his customers because the woman and I both bought the same item but paid different amounts. I will come back to this street vendor but I am sure the woman will not. The vendor sold me the hotdog for one dollar because he wanted to receive some kind of payment for the food already in my hand and thus it was in his best interest to receive less
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.
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.
In this paper, I will argue that Kantianism, not utilitarianism, is the true account of morality. Utilitarianism is based on measuring happiness, but this is not something that can be objectively quantified. It is also a theory that bases the morality of an action on its future consequences, which cannot be accurately predicted. Lastly, a society governed by Kantianism would, possibly, produce greater total happiness than a society governed by utilitarianism.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
In class when we had the conversation about chapter two of Immanuel Kant’s Grounding of Morals, we had discussed the imperatives. The imperatives are broken down into two sections, hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative each having different meanings.
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.
There are three forms of categorical imperatives which involve the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature, Formula of Humanity, and Formula of Autonomy. Kant defines the first formula of categorical imperative in his book, “Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.” (Kant ch. II, pg. 24 online book.
If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.
Legal categorical imperative is based on a sense of duty and can be summarized as follows: the act is moral only if it is done only with respect to the moral law. This is Kant who develops a number of fundamental principles of the rule of law: freedom and independence of each member of society as a human
This paper attempts to show that Kant’s analysis of moral worth is shallow because it does not assign worth on moral endeavours that occur from arguably good motivations. Kant’s criteria revolve around the claim that actions possess moral worth only when we do them for duty itself. I will demonstrate that this is problematic because true moral worth depends on bringing about goodness for other’s sakes, so we should derive inspiration from good willed consequences. I will respond on behalf of Kant that consequential maxims are flawed because consequences can occur due to reasons foreign to our will, so the actions produced from this maxim may not possess unconditional moral worth. Nevertheless, I will reply that contingencies cannot diminish
Long ago, scholars of Kantian ethics realized that the formula of the universalization of maxims, in essence, represented a peculiar form of expression of the golden rule. Its origin goes back to the words of the Jewish preacher Hillel, who lived a century before Christ. When asked how he would briefly express all the wisdom of the Talmud and the Torah, he said: "Do not do to the other what you do not want them to do to you." This prohibitive imperative represents a clear and evident example of the universal criterion that was proclaimed in different ancient cultures. In its positive form it was presented in the Gospel of St. John: "Act with others as you would have them behave with you."