However to act morally then we must be capable of exercising freedom or the autonomy of the will .The opposite of this is what Kant did not believe in and this is heteronomy and that is something is right because its satisfies some desire, emotion, goal or obligation. After excising our freedom and good will then duty is left to follow, as duty is what makes the good will good. It is important that duty can be done for its own sake , our motives need to be pure. To act morally is to do one's duty, and one's duty is to obey the moral law. Kant
Unlike consequentialist views of ethics, Kant's philosophy has been focusing on the intention of acts rather than the consequences of acts. The formula of humanity as it ends in itself prohibits all kinds of manipulation and exploitation of individuals for selfish or even altruistic ends, and specifically demand to respect each and every one's interest. Kant claims that 'rational nature' or 'the human being and in general every rational being' exist "as end in itself", thus, valuing rational nature have the capacity to set ends for oneself. Rational human, is an autonomous and moral agents, who can act in accordance with moral law. Thus they are ‘above all price’.
10/27/08 Petra Keilova PSCI 3370 John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government Question #1: What does Locke mean by the state of nature? Why is this idea important for him? The state of nature is explained as an idea of a perfect freedom of a human being to be in charge of his actions and his property. By property Locke means human being’s body and things that are created by that human being’s body. The idea is important for Locke because I believe it is sort of a foundation for the whole Locke’s philosophy.
“Free will is an illusion. What seems to be freely chosen behaviour is really the result go internal and external forces acting upon the individual” Discuss this view. Quite simply, the idea of free will is that individuals have complete control over their life and their destiny. Believers of free will are of the opinion that human behaviour is the result of choices which each individual makes for themselves; external factors do not influence behaviour in any way. In total opposition to this belief is determinism, the theory that all behaviour is pre-ordained and we cannot chose our destiny so to speak.
Utilitarians fixate on this exact notion. The idea is that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong, consequences are all that matter. Utilitarians focus primarily on welfare in order to make the best decision, or rather the more just decision. It is based on maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, in the long run. Utilitarianism emphasizes the idea of welfare as a means for justice because it primarily defers to the masses.
The main concepts behind Kantian theory are generated from the Categorical Imperative, used as an ethical rule for decision-making to determine the right action. The CI specifies that one should never treat another as a “means to an end.” Humans must be treated as ends in themselves with dignity, respect, and equality, not as objects that can be manipulated. Kant also believes in “the universal law” (a version of the Golden Rule) which states that one has a duty not to act on reasons in which one would not want others to do. If one’s motive for action, or maxim, is in accordance with the CI, then the action is permissible. 2.
If determinism is true, then we don’t have free will. Discuss. It can be argued that if determinism is true, then we do not have free will. However, this argument really depends on which stream of determinism is being referred to. The argument that supports this idea the most is the fatalism argument - the idea that everything is predetermined before we are born and our actions do not affect this.
Categorical Imperative vs. Utility Kant’s categorical imperative gives precedence to morality over happiness. It is the absolute command of moral law and a duty bound action, void of any other purpose or condition, good in itself—proposing what one ought to do. It commands that a particular course of action is required, regardless of any willed end. It is the fulfillment of one’s duty to necessary truths that gives an act moral worth, regardless of its consequences. The basic formulation of the categorical imperative states: “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law”.
Humans’ personalities and way of life is greatly influenced by our moral convictions so to have discussion about how humans should live together without taking into consideration what shapes us, is not only a mistake, but it is impossible. Sandel is thus claiming that what current democracy is attempting to do is impossible and causes a paradox which creates unrest within the people. He suggests this is fixed by encouraging open deliberation as a part of the political process. What causes this deliberation to be open is that there is discussion about
Augustine is considered a deep-self compatibilist who believes that if we act according to our will and not just our desires we can have free will. He also believes that God allows for free will as a means of explaining why evil is present in our world. All ideas on free will and determinism can be related to today’s society and how we function. “In general we can say that having freewill means that we can make choices in our lives and that these choices are up to us.” (Rauhut 77) If we have the ability to make decisions and shape our futures we ultimately have freewill then “why do philosophers worry about freewill” (Rauhut 78). Philosophers question freewill based on the idea