Free Essays,College Free Essays,Free College Essays at Anti Essays

When justifying many things using Kant’s ethical philosophy you can end up hitting a moral wall. Kant’s theories are highly based on the group motives, and although this is great for overall society when looking at it from the outside in a non subjective way, it can lead to some decisions which can be highly detrimental to other groups, especially smaller minority groups. This criticism is very justified, although from a different sense it may not be justified. When deciding for a large group, this form of rationalizing could very well be the best way to justify things. Although, if the groups morals do not agree with what this decision may be, then a different approach should be taken.
The community rational makes the most sense to me. We are social beings, and we base a heavy part of our daily lives on a social network which is highly relied upon. When going out and trying to accomplish a task I may need to use the help of someone I know who is more skilled in the area I am trying to approach. I would not know him if it were not for past experiences which built a social bond. When seeing things this way ethical rational is based on the group perspective. If someone is better for only one person then this can be detrimental to many others who rely on his actions in their day to day lives. Although this is a pretty random example, when I decide what clothes to put on in a certain day, I may not make this decision based upon what is the most comfortable to me, rather it could be which set of clothes is the most aesthetically pleasing to the ones around me.
Evaluating moral actions independently of their consequences should be used in spareing circumstances. If Kant himself was in the situation of the Anne Frank family then I think he would answer in the way which best fit his scenario, as in he would go against his normal way of reasoning and answer “No, there are no Jews in this house”. This answer would benefit his life, which was in serious...