Explain Kants Theory of Ethics Essay
Margen was born in 1724-1804, having been a German thinker from East Prussia (now Russia), and he spent his whole life in the hometown. Margen wanted to produce a logical, stand-alone theory that wasn’t only based on assumptions, he supported an objective right or wrong that is decided on reason and that we shouldn’t do the proper thing because it’s correct and not to fulfil our desires. Can we lead a life next his values are there not really some scenarios where a perfect moral decision cannot be produced, are all each of our choices fuelled by personal gain and desire?
This individual has a deontological and absolute approach to values, to Margen what makes a task good is definitely when you do the ‘duty’ which one’s responsibility is to often flow the moral law. We should not really act out of affection or compassion. The purpose is what makes a task good –nothing else! The consequences to Kant are worthless it’s the act on its own that needs to be correct an example of his thinking will be its wrong to destroy 1 man in order to save 10.
Only $13.90 / page
For Margen the fact that individuals ‘ought’ to perform something means that it is possible to obtain. Thus meaningful statements are prescriptive: that they prescribe a task. Ought implies can, ‘if I should do X’, it means ‘I can easily do X’.
Kant likewise believed that moral claims are a priori (knowable prior to experience) and synthetic, that they can be confirmed by each of our empirical facts so are possibly true or false. Kant put forward thinking about two imperatives the hypothetical imperative, these are not moral commands and in addition they don’t affect everyone. In Kant’s eyes you only have to obey these people if you want to achieve a certain objective.
An example of this could be that Margen observed that the word ‘ought’ is often employed non-e morally, for example ‘if you want to turn into a better musician or guitarist, you ought to practice’. On the other hand Margen also proposed the Particular Imperative, they are moral instructions that can be universalised and do not rely upon anything else. Although the theoretical imperative requires you to move from ‘a’ to ‘b’ then categorical imperative just requires one to just do ‘a’. “Duties pertaining to duties sake” this related to the specific imperative. Kant then goes on to the 3 maxims, first off to check a moral maxim because it’s a universal legislation either everyone should follow it or everyone should reject it.
The first maxim is ‘Your action must be able to be universalised’ before you act in a certain approach, would you like everyone in the same situation to do something in the same way. In the event that not, then you definitely are involved in a contradiction it goes against reason, ” so in which principle of action might safely be produced of legislation for the whole world” if you were to consider lying through the first maxim its clear it would fail as that would mean everyone would be lying to one another and trust is totally destroyed. The 2nd maxim is definitely ‘Don’t deal with people as a method to an end’ Kant firmly believed that you could never work with human beings as a method to an end, to exploit or perhaps enslave them.
Humans to Kant are typical the highest stage of creation and so demand a unique treatment. This guarantees that all persons are afforded the moral concepts; therefore zero humans can be utilized for the sake of other folks, he as well explained that we have a duty to formulate our own flawlessness, developing each of our moral, mental and physical capabilities. We also have a responsibility to seek the happiness of others as long as that is certainly within the legislation and enables the freedom more. “Always recognize that man individually happen to be ends and do not use them as a means to your end” therefore you can’t lie by way of example to further the own needs at the cost of using an individual.
Kant’s final and third maxim ‘ work towards a kingdom of ends’ this can be an overall finale of the initial two, everyone should work as if every individual was a ‘end’ and that meaningful choices always be based on virtually any empirical concern about human nature, human growing or human destiny. Nonetheless it needs to be obvious that despite this autonomy this does not mean that everyone is able to just decide their own values but rather that every individual has the ability to understand the rules of real practical reason and adhere to them. It really is impartial and must connect with everyone.
If perhaps one maxim is disproved then the law becomes immoral and can’t be universalised. Kant as well talked about good will and duty, to Kant the ‘greatest good or summon bonum’ is actually Kant terms as good can. Someone of good will can be not good because of what they achieve (the consequence) but since he/she works out of duty. Great will to Kant is definitely the only issue that is genuinely pure, as we can get each of our reasoning incorrect or it might be manipulated, but for have the great will to execute your obligation cannot be manipulated or got wrong. Kant contrasted ‘doing your duty’ with ‘giving into your emotions’ or carrying out what you feel like.
The main two meanings of duty come into conflict while the initially thought that means of duty is to obey your remarkable, this is what the Nazi soldiers claimed purity about after they were trialled for battle crimes they were just following orders but is that moral? To abide by the ethical law the actual right thing and think a situation through is Kant’s meaning of duty “Good will stands out forth like a precious jewel” –Kant. Kant’s theory of ethics generally seems to grant freedom to do anything that could be universalised. This kind of sets the bounds but would not give guidance; therefore in order for it to make perception Kant proposed the three postulates, the existence of goodness, freedom and immorality.
We can say that morality can easily exist mainly because we can notice it. On the other hand we must become free to conduct it since otherwise the act wouldn’t be really moral. Values and liberty must result from somewhere to Kant this is God. Margen argues that there must be a God and an remainder as there needs to be some sort of reward. Even as we cannot be best in this your life.
This is known as reaching the invite bonum i mentioned previously, as this kind of cannot be accomplished in this life, there must be a great afterlife exactly where this can be achieved. For Kant, morality brings about God. Portion B: Measure the view it is always directly to keep one’s promises. In Kant’s view immorality takes place when the categorical crucial is certainly not followed: every time a person endeavors to set a different sort of standard for themselves then throughout humanity.
In the Groundwork to get the Metaphysics of Probe, once Kant has derived his categorical imperative he applies it to a quantity of examples. The second example and probably the most analysed is that of an unfaithful assure. Kant is applicable his very important to a person who is less than money who also intends to request a loan, saying they will repay this, but with zero intention of accomplishing so.
When Kant applies the particular imperative to the situation this individual discovers it leads to a contradiction, pertaining to if breaking promises were to become universal then no individual would ever agree to a assure and guarantees would disappear. Kant connects rationality with morality, and sees contradictory behaviour as immoral. A lot of critics include argued that Kant never asserts the text between rationality and values, but the majority of dismiss this and point out that Kant clearly points out how values must be based upon reason and not upon desires.
Another weakness is that suppose your good friend told you a secret that he was going to murder an individual, it would be the obligation to keep it but is that morally correct? Could that surpass the 3 maxims, in the second maxim there can be not any use of one person for the sake of another, are you forsaking the person that is planned to become murdered simply to keep a promise. Even so on the other hand there are strengths to Kant’s way of thinking as it means everyone single human features intrinsic benefit, actions are based on reason and logic and 3 straightforward maxims that really must be followed so that it cuts out various grey areas as if it simply doesn’t stick to the maxims that can’t always be universalised.
Various other theories, utilitarianism for example might say it could be wrong to hold a assurance of a top secret of designed bomb attack that would kill hundreds as you would be keeping hundreds of lives by updating the police. Utilitarian’s believe that the end result outweighs the action. For me I agree with Kant theory as I believe there should be trust among people, because relationships with people would mean nothing at all also it’s a matter of honour should you gave your word to someone I will promise you this etc . then it has to be in the best of your capacity to fulfil this if it’s a good cause and not unjust.
However in extreme cases just like say the assure of keeping a secret of your planned terrorist attack I would have to side with the utilitarian approach.