Weekly Analysis: Kant, Duty and Reason 1. What is the author trying to argue? According to Kant, nothing is good because good can always be attached to some bad or used for bad. The only thing that can be called good is good will. Good will is not good because of what it does, although it can make good things happen.
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
Kant sees this as similar to making moral decisions as the moral choice is not always the desired choice and therefore not in your self interest. This is why Kant uses his ‘categorical imperative’ as it simply is “I must do ‘x’” because there is no possibility of conflicting with self interest. The categorical imperative also has two parts; universal law and ends and means. This determines if the action you are considering to
Plato discussed the question of God being good. To say that God is good, a means of comparing God to something external call good must exist. Plato used this argument in Euthyphro1. A morally perfect being always chooses the good action over the evil one. In order to be morally perfect both good and evil must exist outside of God so that he can choose it.
In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. (4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more … DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF The Principle of Double Effect is a rule of conduct frequently used in moral theology to determine when a person may lawfully perform an action from which two effects will follow, one bad and the other good.
The divine commands vary in religions but in the end, they all have in common that moral obligations depend on God. Natural law is sometimes described as being deontological because it leads to a set of rules that people have a duty to follow. It is an absolute theory of ethics and was developed by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas says that the natural laws are universal and unchangeable and should be
Immorality therefore is the violation of such law. Kant goes on to argue that the morality of any action can be seen, not by the desired consequences, but by the motive behind the action. Basically, Kant believes that we should act because of the motive not because we see the end results of the action. Consequences of an act are, for the most part, irrelevant to morality; we can control the motives but not control the results. Motives then can be measured by whether or not they can be turned into a universal maxim.
It is straight from the belief, for example: I believe this is right, so I should do this. Kant says that we can’t believe that it is right to do something without believing that we should do it and we can’t believe it’s wrong to do something without believing that we shouldn’t do it. Categorical imperative is different from hypothetical imperative because it’s bound by rational nature, not your affection nature of desires. According to Kant, everyone has a reason of acting in certain way. For Kant, the moral law binds us absolutely in virtue of our capacity for reason: to act immorally is to act irrationally.
He further explains that the evil deeds that we perform are of our own accord, and that we are punished by God’s justice because they are done out of our own free will. This argument leads perfectly into the question of free will because, like Aug, I agree that we are not taught evil. Aug explains to Ev that it is impossible to learn evil deeds. It is impossible to learn something evil because our intelligence is inherently good. Since our intelligence is inherently good it is not possible to take away from something that is good, something that is evil.
God faring people accept the teachings of God and the best way to live. Euthyphro dilemma was “Is conduct right because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is right” (Rachel’s and 50-53)? The problem with this dilemma is that God is always right and what isn’t right is wrong according to God. Which makes Euthyphro confused because he isn’t sure anymore what is right and what is wrong. The concept of morality is mysterious is saying that just because god says its right to slap a child doesn’t really make it right.