Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critiques of kants metaphysics of morals
Critiques of kants metaphysics of morals
Kant on morality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critiques of kants metaphysics of morals
Flavia Neyra People Seeds Thomson’s “People Seeds” thought experiment illustrates a situation where we can imagine that people are like seeds drifting in the air like pollen. One of these seeds can simply drift into people’s houses when they open the window and take root in their carpets. If they don’t want any of these people seeds then they can easily fix their window by buying the best fine mesh to cover it. However, as it does happen, one window’s screen mesh is defective and a seed gets in. Now, does the person plant that develops in the house have the right to use the house? This question can be approached in many ways and have numerous answers. However, I will be discussing the way that Kant, an ethical philosopher, would approach such question by using his theory of categorical imperative. I will also explain the problem of the situation and my opposing view towards Kant’s responses. The situation above is describing the view of abortion. Thomson is using the idea of the mesh window as contraception. The situation mentions that people can buy the best mesh for their window to protect their house from the seeds. In the same sense, people buy the best contraception to prevent them from getting pregnant. However, nothing is guaranteed, so the seed ends up getting into the house by a defective mesh on the window. This also happens in life, when contraception fails and gets a woman pregnant. The question being proposed is “Does the plant that develops in the house have the right to use the house?” In other terms, “Does a fetus have the right to be in the mother’s womb or can a mother choose to not have the fetus?” Kant argues the idea of a categorical imperative, which all humans should choose good acts based on a univers... ... middle of paper ... ...erative is inconsistent. Categorical imperative determines what you should do regardless of the ends. Doing an act without an end is pointless. Everyone aims for end to make choices. For example, people make choices based on what makes them happy. Happiness is an end that people aim towards. Without this end, people would have no purpose do anything. Therefore, there must ends in order to make choices and not because we should do them as Kant theory states. Having a choice of an abortion is a decision many women make everyday. Kant’s categorical imperative is only one view to look upon this situation. By stating an unconditional should statement and passing the universal liability test determines if the act is good. According to Kant, the act of abortion would be immoral. However, I believe that Kant fails to explain the ends to why we should do the things we do.
Furthermore, Lee and George then dispute another argument, which they call “the evaluative version.” This arguments contends that a fetus becomes valuable and bearers of rights during a later time. Lee and George dispute various scenarios in this version. For example, Judith Thomson supported abortion by comparing the right to life with the right to vote. Lee and George attacks Thomson objection by stating
Take for example giving a performance report for a subpar employee. Do you give that person a stellar performance report because you like them as a person? Or are you up front with them and tell them their performance is lacking and needs to improve? To follow the Categorical Imperative, you give them the poor report because it is the right thing to do to help that person succeed in the future. It explores the idea that an act or a decision can still be morally good as it follows the guiding rules of the universe, even if that act does not produce maximized good (Barlaup, 2009).
In this argument, seeds are contained within the pollen outside and the seeds can root into the carpets and floors to grow into human beings. The person living in this environment wants to have her windows open because she needs fresh air in her house; however, she runs the risk of getting the people-seeds inside the house. Even with the knowledge that the people seeds can get inside the house and potentially grow as people, she still wants to open the windows; instead of simply opening the windows, she puts a mesh screen that is supposed to block the seeds from entering into the house. If the seeds are being blocked, then she can live with the windows open in peace, but there is also a miniscule percentage that the mesh will not work and the people-seeds will enter into the house, implant, and grow into people. In the end of the scenario given by Thomson, the mesh does not completely block the people-seeds and they are able to enter through the door and grow into people. The person destroys the people seeds since she does not want to have them grow in her house in the first place. According to Thomson, it is morally permissible to destroy the people seeds because the person took every possible alternative used to avoid having the seeds flourish in the house. This case relates to cases where two people consent to intercourse and use contraception, but the contraception fails. Although this argument would make for a great case arguing for the morally permissibility of abortion, it does not work. The major flaw is the flaw of the survivability of a single human being. For example, with the argument posed by Thomson, the person decides to open a window. A human cannot survive without clean air, therefore, the windows/door of the house need to be open at some point in time, thus making the inevitable happen, which is allowing the people seeds to come into the house. In the real case it relates to, the two
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
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 ...
The nature of humanity is a heavily debated topic. While many believe that humans are by nature evil, many others believe the opposite, which humans are by nature, good. Are people capable to do good deeds for the sake of being good, or are good deeds disguised under selfish motives. Kant stated the only thing that is unconditionally good, or as he termed it a categorical imperative, and the only categorical imperative, is good will. If good will, is unconditionally good, and is the only categorical imperative, then categorical imperatives are nonexistent, because there is no such thing as having a good will. Every action has an underlying reason for it. No action is done simply as a means for itself. No good willed action is done for it’s own sake, for the sake of obligation or for the sake of being good. It is impossible to act without being influenced by external influences.
When it comes to abortion Kant’s position is better than Aristotle’s and should be used. Kant believed in Deontology; a duty theory. This theory stated that actions must be done because we know it is our duty. The duty would be to do the right thing even if it is contrary to our inclinations. Kant thought that more often than not our moral duty went against our personal desires because we are unable to separate emotion from reason. Abortion is a perfect example of this. Many abortions take place because the mothers feel as if having the child would ruin their lives. By doing this they are putting their morals aside to prevent an innocent child from what they think would be ruining their lives. Morality comes from doing your duty and
To analyze the question of "Is abortion moral? " one must not take different examples, but use a single example that includes most, if not all of the cases. The only exception, for the reasons I will state afterwards, is sexual harassment. This is the only extreme case that occurs in real life. To strengthen the argument I will try to look from a Kantian perspective. .
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 is one of the central philosophical concepts that were developed by philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant moral philosophy is deontological; it rests on the notion of duty or obligation from the Greek word ‘Deon’ (Kant, Immanuel). Kant formulated the categorical imperative in three different ways: The first universal law formulation “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that is should become universal law”. (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, any moral law or maxim you choose to adopt, it has to have rational sense to be implemented for everyone else to adopt is as well. If so, then this moral law can guide whatever course of action is open to you. The second humanity or end of itself formulation “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never merely as a means but always at the same time as end” (Kant, Immanuel) In other words, this almost follows the golden rule treat people with respect, so that they can treat you with the same courtesy. Moreover, treat thyself with the same respect as you would treat others. The third kingdom of ends formulation “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”(Kant, Immanuel) In other words, we should treat eac...
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...
... 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.
In conclusion, Kant’s three formulations of the categorical imperative are great examples of how we should live our lives. Along with living our lives by the formulations of the categorical imperative, we should also treat every rational being as an end in itself. It is quite obvious that Kant’s theories are still in existence today.
According to Judith Thomson in her book “A Defense of Abortion”, a human embryo is a person who has a right to life. But, just because the human fetus has the right to life does not mean that the mother will be forced to carry it (Thomson, 48). Naturally, abortion may be seen as the deliberate termination of a pregnancy before the fetal viability. Though people have understood this, the topic of abortion has remained a controversial issue in the world. Individuals are divided into “Pro-choice” and “Pro-life” debaters depending on their opinion on the morality of the action. "Pro-life," the non-consequentialist side, is the belief that abortion is wrong, generally because it equates to killing. "Pro-choice," the consequentialist view, however,
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.