Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kant and the categorical imperative
Ethics is more right or wrong
Impact of ethics on decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kant and the categorical imperative
I. Kant and the Categorical Imperative:
It is generally understood that society would tear itself apart if people suddenly stopped following a few fundamental laws; such as, crimes that deal with arson, theft, and murder. In addition to these basic guidelines, most people tend to follow a simple set of moral ‘rules.’ Now, these rules basically involve things like respect, honour, and dignity considering society is not only filled with law-abiding citizens, but also people who want to live a good, honest life. Furthermore, most people understand that the Criminal Code is more important than something like common courtesy because people are more likely to commit violent crimes when there are no consequences for their actions. However, morality is still a crucial part of a rational person’s life since it is essentially a code of conduct that tells them how to act in any given situation. Even though there are various definitions for morality, it is still seen as the same thing in the end because it involves doing the right thing at any given time. After all, every decision boils down to the distinction between what people want to do and what they ought to do considering most people are willing to tolerate some pain, especially if they believe it will eventually lead to some pleasure. For example, university students will deal with the stress of exams and essays because they know their degree will help them get a solid career. In other words, humanity can realistically survive without a moral code; although, it would obviously not be an ideal place to live. Additionally, it is safe to assume that rational people not only choose to live a moral life, but also make decisions based on thoughts instead of feelings since they are...
... middle of paper ...
...velop their talents because they would be more likely to attain great things (Kant, G.M.M. Sec. 2, p.37). In other words, this example is clearly used to demonstrate part of the first formulation and the imperfect duties that a person has toward their self considering Kant believes that people simply cannot become good at anything without any practice. Finally, Kant’s last example of the categorical imperative is essentially all about the imperfect duties toward others because it discusses the idea helping others who are in need (Kant, G.M.M. Sec. 2, p.37). In fact, Kant states that society could still exist if people refused to help each other out; however, that is not an ideal world to live in since everyone needs friendship, love, and sympathy from others. In conclusion, a person can only live a moral live by following the Kantian categorical imperatives.
Morality derives from the Latin moralitas meaning, “manner, character, or proper behavior.” In light of this translation, the definition invites the question of what composes “proper behavior” and who defines morality through these behaviors, whether that be God, humanity, or an amalgamation of both. Socrates confronted the moral dilemma in his discourses millennia ago, Plato refined his concepts in his Republic, and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi would commit their life work to defining and applying the term to political reform. Finally, after so many years, Martin Luther King’s “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” reaches a consensus on the definition of morality, one that weighs the concepts of justice and injustice to describe morality as the
The second act of Kant’s categorical imperative pertains to how we treat others. According to Kant, we must “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
“The categorical imperative would be that one which represented an action as objectively necessary for itself, without any reference to another end, (Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd Section, Immanuel Kant, 1797). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is basically not to be a ‘means to an end,’ or not use people as tools for your own personal gain. Take for example during colonial times when a family would give there child to a master craftsman, so that the child would learn that particular trade after so many years of working. Many of these trades were medicine, blacksmith and carpentry; from the moment the children were given to the master craftsman they now depended on the craftsman for food, shelter and knowledge. The children would work long hard hours tending to whatever the master needed or wanted. Kant would not have agreed with these practices because both parties were using each other; the children was in essence a slave for the master craftsman because he did whatever he was told but the child is also just using the master for his insight. “Pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable that are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention
To thoroughly comprehend Kant’s moral philosophy, we must first understand two key elements by which it stands: good will and the categorical imperative. Primordially, Kant believes in good will. Some value happiness, justice or even authority; Kant, on the other hand, values our good will above anything else. Good will, he contends, is our commitment to do our duty for its own sake (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70). In other words, we will not be held accountable for actions out of our reach, only our ability and willingness to act in a good way—our ultimate duty. He believes this characteristic possesses unconditional value (value in and of itself, or on its own) and as such deserves to be exercised under all possible circumstances (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70-75). He goes as far as to say that actions will posses moral worth only if they are a result of our good will, similar to that which we intend to achieve(Shafer-Landau, pg. 70).
Over many years people have seemed to develop their thinking concerning morality based on resulting in interactions with individuals and social institutions. Different societies have their own cultures that have different ideas about how humans are to behave. Societies
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
As opposed to Naturalism, the ethical theory of duty occupies a completely different domain. Immanuel Kant, the major advocate of this ethical appro...
Morality starts from the beginning when our species was still living in caves and survival of the fittest was law. Natural selection played a vital role in the development of our species. (Hinde and Rotblat, 30) Evolution has taught us the importance of societal, or familial, groups whether it is to offer protection or emotional comfort. Morality plays a big role in these groups by maintaining a level of homeostasis between its members. This begins from the moment we take our first breath into the world. As infants we rely on our parents to do everything for us. Our mother’s nurture us and our father’s protect us. As we
Morality has been a compass, guiding humankind since time immemorial. What is viewed as right or wrong would likely be influenced by the individual’s values and worldview. What if there is a way to alter this compass in the hearts and minds of the people?
... 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.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Resolutions are usually negative and point out something wrong with us. Us girls are continuously guilty of the 'lose weight' resolution, am I right? Resolutions are a firm action with no room to move which often lead to failure. Intentions are a positive guide with room to move as our circumstances change. Intentions are a commitment to align ourselves to a particular action. Setting intentions rather than resolutions enables our mind set to do what we want to do, not what we think we should do. This year I am setting an intention so that I will not fail resolutions and beat myself up about it, like I have again, and again.
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.