Kant's Categorical Imperative in Grounding for the Metephysics of Morals

1184 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Categorical imperative formulations

In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant first introduces his concept of the categorical imperative (CI) as an unconditional moral law. In this paper I will argue that Kant’s categorical imperative succeeds in proving that lying and murder are immoral. First, I will explain moral law and the categorical imperative, and then I will outline Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. Finally, I will evaluate two maxims to determine if the violate the categorical imperative. First, I will address what Kant means by moral law when referring to the categorical imperative. Moral laws are commands that are universal or apply to everyone. Accordingly, Kant believes that an action is only moral if its maxim is universal. A maxim is a rule or principle on which you act in a given situation. A maxim is universal if one could achieve their desired goal, if everyone in the world acted according to that same maxim. The logical follow up question is: why do moral claims have to be universal? Kant states that moral laws bind all rational agents without exceptions. (Add description of what this means). Additionally, moral imperatives are absolute in the sense that they are overriding and no situation could arise that would trump a moral claim. Since I have now shown that moral laws are commands (imperatives) that are universal, the next step is to determine whether they are hypothetical or categorical imperatives. A hypothetical imperative tells you what to do in order to achieve your goal. For example, if I want to satisfy my hunger, then I ought to eat. A hypothetical imperative is conditional because it requires one to first will an ends (want to satisfy hunger) in order to then will an action (to eat). A hypothetical imperative is n... ... middle of paper ... ...veryone murdered in order to get their desired job, there would be no security in possessing an admired job because when someone wants your job you will be murdered. Additionally, if you received a job by murdering someone, those jobs would now be filled by less qualified people and as a result eventually turn into less desirable roles. If this maxim were a universal law then most jobs would not exist, as company leaders would continuously be killed, preventing companies and jobs from existing altogether. Since the maxim failed the Contradiction in Inception test we have a “perfect duty” to abstain from acting on the maxim, with no exceptions. Kant clearly outlines that it is our strict duty not to murder under any circumstances. Furthermore, Kant’s categorical imperative was successful in proving that this maxim lacked universalizability and is ultimately immoral.

Show More
Related

  • Ethics in Nursing

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant made a distinction between two types of duties which are hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are rules or duties people ought to observe if certain ends are to be achieved. Hypothetical imperatives are sometimes called “if-then” imperatives, which are condit...

    Read More

  • Lone Survivor Ethical Analysis

    684 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rather, Kant believed that life holds certain categorical imperatives that one must not violate. An example of a categorical imperative would be not to murder. Regardless of any incentive one may have to murder another individual, one must unconditionally follow this imperative (Anscombe). Kant arrived at these categorical imperatives by describing the formula of universal law (Anscombe). In this, Kant states that one may only act upon a maxim that could extend to the entirety of the universe; any action could be followed by any other individual without exception or repercussion (Anscombe). Thus, if an individual were to murder someone, that individual would accept their own murder to be morally permissible. Since this maxim cannot be universally adopted by our society, murder is classified as a categorical

    Read More

  • The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Work On Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals?

    788 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Morality Vs Immanuel Kant

    2119 Words  | 5 Pages

    Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    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’.

    Read More

  • Categorical Moral Imperative Analysis

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Kant’s categorical imperative can provide a set of rules to formulate what a good person is and should do. Kantian philosophy is deontological and it requires people to always do their duty. Kant does not forbid feeling good or happiness, but it must be the case that each person can fulfill their duty even if they did not enjoy doing it. In summary, in order to determine whether or not a particular act is good or bad, morally speaking, we must apply the categorical imperative and I have provide justifications to use it in our daily day lives.

    Read More

  • Comparing Kant And Gun Control

    826 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant’s idea of the hypothetical imperative is, the idea of what someone wants and how they should achieve that want or what they need to do in order to get what they want. The categorical imperative on the other hand is Kant's idea of what must be followed regardless of our own personal interests. When using both of these types of imperatives to analyse the gun control issue, the ideas must be viewed separately. A hypothetical imperative in this situation could be if a person wants to own a gun then they have to make the conscious decision to be responsible with that gun. The individual knows that in order not to be in trouble or have their freedoms taken away they have to exercise responsibility. The categorical imperative that could be applied to the situation is the idea that humans should not kill one another, this idea of not killing someone is an absolute law. The categorical imperatives determine whether something is right or something is wrong for instance killing someone is inherently wrong so Kant believes that no one should do that. This incorporates the idea of Goodwill meaning that down to everyone's fundamental core people are naturally good willed and will do the right thing. If they don't do right the right thing then they are justifying that everyone is allowed to kill and there is nothing wrong with that. Todd Calder Professor of philosophy for the University of Victoria, analyzes Kant’s ideas of imperatives and associates them with degrees of wrongness. Todd described that Kant implied, varying degrees of wrongness when he was thinking of his theories, the degree of wrongness is fitting the crime with punishment. Todd states, “Kant believes that one reason we should mete out punishment according the principle of retribution is that only then will punishment be in proportion to the inner wickedness of the criminal.”(Calder 232) This

    Read More

  • Metaphysics of Morals

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.

    Read More

  • Case Study Of Kant's Deontology

    1113 Words  | 3 Pages

    Over the course of this essay, I will present the reader with information on Kant’s Deontology, including, but not limited to, explaining how Immanuel Kant discerns what is morally right and morally wrong. I will then apply these criterion to case number two, and attempt to accurately portray what Kant’s Deontology dictates is the morally correct response. Following this determination, I will show the reader that although Kant’s moral reasoning will lead us to a definitive answer, we should not be so quick to accept it. Interestingly enough, he seems to lead us to what would generally be the correct answer, but perhaps not in the given circumstance and not for the right reason.

    Read More

  • Kant 's Three Propositions Of Morality

    1593 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theory: The Philosophical Study Of Morality

    1964 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kantianism is named after a German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived in 1724-1804. According to Kant, the only thing that is good is good will; moreover, the good will builds the whole structure of the society. Kantianism is based on the intent of the action or person’s intention which are the predominant attributes of the good will. The basic principle of Kantianism theory depicts the idea of universal truths. It explains that a moral rule must be universal. Also, it describes that people should be treated with respect. Moreover, it explains the credibility of an action why it is right or wrong and convinces the user with logical reasons. Kant proposed the Categorical Imperative, which describes a set up to explain, “What makes a moral rule appropriate?” One version of the Categorical Imperative states that it is wrong for a person to use himself or another person uniquely as a means to an end. Most of the time it is easier to use the second version of the Categorical Imperative to analyze a moral problem from a Kantian point of view. For example, in the case of Jean, misusing the responsibilities of someone else’s duty. It was wrong for Jean to treat the profession of the doctor as a means to an end. Jean deceived the profession of the doctors with the goal of getting benefit to save his nephew. It was wrong for jean to misuse his responsibilities rather than to think that he can find a way to look for a doctor. We can also look at this scenario using the first version of the Categorical Imperative. Jean wanted to save his nephew Pierre. A proposed moral rule might be, “Take a decision in his hands to save his nephew.” However, if everyone followed the same rule, it will diminish the sense of duty, responsibility, and the respect of the profession. If everyone will act the same way in this type of situation and try to misuse his or her professional responsibilities, then there will

    Read More

More about Kant's Categorical Imperative in Grounding for the Metephysics of Morals

Open Document