Normative Ethics Immanuel Kant

Normative ethics have received much praise and criticism from well-respected philosophers for many years. Structured by Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the greatest minds in history, Kantian ethics have changed the way people look at what truly makes an action “right.” Kant believed that developing a moral system that was consistent and based entirely on reason was achievable. He urged ethics that are knowable without reference to sense experience, or as he calls “a priori” claims, because they are universal and binding. Kant argued that it is impossible to ground ethics on religion. Instead, he turned to a vague sense of natural law and states that rules exist to rational beings, whether on this universe or any other, simply because they are rational beings.

The scenario analyzed for this prompt is highly controversial if seen through the eyes of a true Kantian. Not only does this excerpt put into play nearly every major aspect of Kantian theory, but it also acts as a double-edged sword in defeating most imaginable solutions. Throughout the next few pages, I will attempt to explain to the best of my knowledge what Immanuel Kant would argue given the situation, analyze various scenarios and explain the moral sense of such decisions.

Lets begin by analyzing a scenario brought about within the prompt. It reads, “Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the soldiers to threat.” This in a sense could easily violate Kantian morality. Kant believed in perfect morality in which actions are either “right” or “wrong” in any situation and was a largely against using people as mere means. Though he argues that using people as means i...

... middle of paper ...

...ue is, whether a rational person would honestly allow themselves and others to be killed instead of claiming the life of only one person. In Jim’s case, it is safe to say that inaction is also an action. The question then needs to be asked on whether Jim has a moral obligation to help preserve the lives of innocent people.

In deciding what Jim should do, Kant would likely argue that he should defend himself. The “right to life” would be a maxim that could hold its weight throughout the criteria required for an ethical action. Rational beings would likely agree to such natural right and be able to act upon it if the occasion arises. In addition to passing ethical reasoning, one could argue that Jim has an imperfect duty to the Indians in need. If the action is done out of good will to help the people, his action has moral worth regardless of the possible outcomes.