Kant’s view uses a categorical imperative, in which ethics is based upon an absolute, objective, deontologcial theory, in which intentions are more important than consequences. Kant believed that an ethics should be based around something entirely good. He decided that the only thing entirely good in the whole universe is ‘good will’. Everybody must decide ethical decisions in a way in which they put themselves last, fulfill their duty, and commit only selfless acts. This may be psychologically impossible, as many believe there is always a selfish reason for any good deed, however Kant only proposed a theory, and
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
He was the man responsible for a majority of quotes that made this text popular. Voltaire’s satire evolves around Pangloss’s optimism. His philosophical views mainly target conceptions from the Enlightment. His views state that, “the conception that if God is all good, and all-puissant God had engendered the world and that, therefore, the world must be impeccable.” It is believed through his philosophy that it is seen as misguided or evil, it is because they do not understand the overall good that the “evil” is designated to accommodate. Like Candide, Pangloss is not a tenable character; rather, he is a distorted, hyperbolized representation of a philosopher whose beliefs and perspective is considerable linked to his philosophy.
INTRODUCTION The ethical decision is challenging and probably blurry for decision-makers. Mostly, it creates a dilemma where fierce antagonism arises from listening to the voice of conscience and the voices of other opinions surrounding. Profoundly, the winner is determined by how willing the person is to pursue the goodness and freely choose to pay attention to the inner voice or mute it. Moral philosophers are contributing in providing an instrument to enable us to heed to the verdict of conscience, by which will be the compass through the decision stages. Kant analogizes the role of the moral philosopher to reveal the ambiguous perception of what it is moral to be clearer and shimmers dazzlingly, supplementary; he emphasised that we do not
Are they merely expressing opinions or stating matters of fact? Can we really tell right from wrong? Many people would answer this by stating that what is believed to be right or wrong is essential for any discussion about our behavior. If this is the case then we could never have a meaningful discussion about morality. Ethical statements are not just about observable facts, but are often statements about what we believe should happen and so are not very easy to establish as true or false, as they are expressions of points of view not shared be everyone.
This question has been debated over since the beginnings of philosophical thought and continues to persist to this day. Many philosophers have contemplated this question and come to varying conclusions, spanning range from moral reasoning being purely a matter of feelings and passions to that it purely a matter of the intellect. The crux of the question, apathetic to whatever your personal beliefs may be, lies with the implications of the answer. The practical consequences that are derived from the distinction between these two opposing viewpoints are of paramount importance for assessing the values of human life. If moral judgments are solely based upon pure reason then they must necessarily be either right or wrong, true or false.
He believes that it is “a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life.” To explain this we must first define sacrifices in general, which is to give up something so as to feel better when suffering, reaching a moment of inspirational truth. In this idea Nietzsche challenges the true ideals of sacrifice by saying, sacrifice is only truly virtues when you give up something for nothing in return. If we look closely at the consequences of peoples sacrifice we see a trend of return interest, that is people receive a feeling of well-being. Nietzsche explains that sacrifice is only used for personal self-interest; in this point the word sacrifice has disbelief in its self. To escape from this continuing moral dilemma we have two choices: 1, we sacrifice, sacrifice all together or 2, we sacrifice for nothing.
PHIL 2230 – Moral Philosophy The Views of Kant and Aristotle on Morality: the Categorical and Hypothetical Imperatives Immanuel Kant discusses in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals the idea of morality as abiding by moral laws – or categorical imperatives. An imperative is “the formula of the command”[1] which indicates to a will – who does not always obey – what is good to do, and what is good to refrain from doing. Kant divides imperatives into two categories; hypothetical and categorical. The hypothetical imperative says “only that an action is good for some purpose, either possible or actual”[2] and therefore an action is only good for its ends. However, the categorical imperative represents an action as “objectively necessary in itself”[3], with no end in mind.
A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.
However, the most important duty for Kant was the duty to one’s self. Because for him, that is what made you the person you are. And if you failed your duty to your self, then you were not worth anything. He also tells us in relation to fulfilling your own duty that if you cannot do so, then you are not able to fulfill your duty toward others. Moreover, he tells us that the duty toward others can be divided into two groups: duties