Explain the theory of duty in Kantian Ethics (25 marks) Kantian ethics is an absolutist theory as Kant claimed what is morally ‘good’ is constant and unchanging. Because of this, it can be a universal concept applied in different societies and cultures with the idea that an action should only be performed for duty’s sake. His approach was deontological because the idea of right or wrong was based on the action rather than the consequence, he believed that this was the only rational basis for morality and could be proven objectively, independent from emotion and opinion. As humans we have the innate ability to reason, something which we gained prior to any sensory experience in this world. This is an idea which is absolute and according to Kant, the way we decide the morality of an action.
Taking into account the sensuous nature of human beings, Kant states that it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope. Immortality guarantees this hope and ensures that there is a place sufficient for the reckoning of happiness in proportion to worthiness to be happy. The postulate of freedom is given a special position among the other two postulates. Freedom is an apriori that we do not understand but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know. It is because of freedom that God and Immortality gain objective reality and legitimacy and subjective necessity.
In 1963 British Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s work on the principle of utility; defends the utilitarian standard of the best outcome for everyone “good of all”. Mill’s holds that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, 1863, p. 1). Therefore, in order to promote happiness, people actions should have positive impact on those around them. My argument is that this is a universal moral truth. As Sommers points out utilitarianism is not an individuals own greatest happiness within their culture or society but the best outcome for everyone.
Critique of Kant’s Indiscriminant Use of the “Categorical Imperative” In terms of the discussion of morals, it all comes down to whether one believes the “good” in a morally good action lies in the cause or the effect of the action. For philosopher Immanuel Kant, the answer lies in the cause, or the initial motive of the action, rather than the consequences that arise from it. However, one cannot rely on his system of morals, as the more they get grounded into real life situations, the harder it is to justify certain actions. If one were to accept a higher and definite system of moral law that applies to any and all rational beings, it cannot be morally permissible for people to only consider the beginning motives of an action with blatant disregard for the potentially horrifying consequences that may follow. In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers.
Therefore, if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding. Mill argues that happiness is the sole basis of morality, and that people never desire
c) “Categorical Imperative: Those actions are right that conform to principles one can consistently will to be principles for everyone, and those actions wrong that are based on maxims that a rational creature could not will that all persons should follow” Kant says that an act is only right or moral if it is right for everyone. If an act is based on a generalized rule that a rational person could not will for all people to do than it is wrong. 3. What is the conclusion? The categorical imperative helps us decide what is right and wrong, and because we all acknowledge our ability to reason, this is the only thing that can
To say that a child cannot have reason but state that what separates man from animal is reason is contradictory. Aristotle's characterization of the human good and happiness and the flaws within it are written as follows: Aristotle argues that there is some ultimate good that is both complete and self-sufficient, and defines this good as happiness. He claims every human action aims at some good, and the good that is chosen for its own sake rather than as means to an end is the highest good. However, he does state that we do choose some goods for something else,
Kant says that in doing the right action, it all matters with the altitude towards the action. The act does not qualify to be good by acting in a particular way just because one thinks it is good. Kant believes that the only good thing that does not require qualifications is a ‘good will’. Acts do not account for a good will if at all an individual is inclined to perform the task for some rewards or pleasure.
Kant proclaims “the belief that we have cognition of something through experience which we in fact cannot accept as happening according to objective laws of experience (faith in miracles)”(p.185). He credits faith's mass appeal and staying power as the main reason for the growth of corrupted notions of miracles and saving grace. Kant was not a believer that accepting Jesus Christ as our savior would be all that is needed in Christian grace to free oneself from sin. Kant says “It is totally inconceivable, however, how a rational human being who knows himself to deserve punishment could seriously believe that he only has to believe the news of satisfaction having been rendered Page 1 for him, and accept it utiliter, in order to regard his guilt as done away with” (p. 123). These ideas of Kant seem to imply he is not a believer of Jesus or that miracles have never happened, the idea Kant is developing that miracles are not necessary for us to develop moral
In order to be morally perfect both good and evil must exist outside of God so that he can choose it. The only way for a being to be morally perfect is for an evil to exist that is not chosen. If God destroys all evil, moral perfection becomes impossible because the choice not to do evil will no longer exist. If God is omnipotent, omniscient , and morally perfect he is constrained not to destroy all evil by his own definition of existence. The property or constraint of being morally perfect is as important as omnipotence.