This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality. Hume writes that it is desire rather than reason that governs human behavior and that, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Kant’s conception of duty is based on the notion that all good ought to be done because they are intrinsically good. Duty for Kant is a basis of moral law. For example, one ought to preserve their own life or help feed the homeless because it is their societal duty to do so, not because they want to or that doing so makes them feel good. In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent.
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.
According to Kant, right actions are not done by following inclinations, impulses or obeying the principle of greatest happiness but are done simply and purely from the sense of duty. Kessler says that some ethical truths and norms are appropriate to everyone in the society, and therefore, people should always act morally irrespective of the outcome for their morals. In deontology ethics, actions are done for the sake of duty. The intrinsic moral feature determines the rightness or wrongness of the act taken by individuals. The duty should always be done by taking the right.
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.
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.
Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other. King’s own account of his philosophy of nonviolence indicated the extent to which he was influenced by Thoreau’s theoretical framework for thinking about civil disobedience and political obligation. Thoreau has confidence in democracy and the belief of unifying individuals of the society to realize it. However, Nietzsche overtly objected to democratic politics, with thinking that love, freedom and democracy are all the results of recognizing the right. Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement.
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.
The rule utilitarian believes that there are enough human motives and situations to justify setting up rules that apply to all humans and situations. Kant’s duty ethics were broken down into categorical imperative and practical imperative. According to categorical imperative an act is immoral if the rule that would authorize it cannot be made into a rule for all humans. Practical imperative states that no human should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else’s end but rather each human is a unique end in himself. There are similarities and differences between these two groups of categories.
Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.