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.
It was noted that while this may be the case we still feel obliged to obey the law. I believe that legitimate laws, depending on your definitions of legitimate, are not all in place because of moral rules. A portion of them definitely are, the laws such as murder and rape go without saying that they based on moral requirements but the smaller, less dramatic laws can hardly be seen in a moral light, such as the specific laws that you must follow if you wish to be married. Natural law theory has a unique way of explaining the conflict between moral autonomy and our obligation to the law, the theorists say that particular argument is merely a superficial one. They claim that there is a mysterious universal moral code that runs through all of us, no matter what colour or creed.
Interpretations concerning conscience range from the theological, psychological and philosophical. There are many different approaches that people may choose to believe, most taking a religious or psychological approach. Different scholars and philosophers have put forward arguments for the ethical issue which try to explain what this ‘inner-sense’ is, for it is something that is arguably present in everybody; however it is not always considered when making moral decisions. Is conscience important, is it needed, and why ought it to be always followed when making ethical decisions? Some would argue that although conscience is present, it is not particularly necessary.
He also rejected the relativist point of view in favor of the view that certain principles of justice and fairness represent the summit of moral maturity. He discovered that these principles are found in different cultures around the world. The topics that Rawls discusses are different than those of Kohlberg. One of these topics is his theory of justice. It is one of the most widely discussed topics in political philosophy.
Therefore, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the action. The theory holds that morals are inherent in the law of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of god, or some other fundamental source. Thus, the theory recognizes objective facts about morality: moral claims are either true or false for everyone. One such relative theorist, Hobbes, argues for morality as a solution for practical problems. Morality, in his system, is a vehicle to move from state of nature into law of nature, and is a move mandated by self-interest.
These ‘banks’ are impediments in that individuals life, and thus restricts one’s moral decisions. Therefore, many believe that ‘we are not free to make moral decisions’ because of these boundaries that are bound to use from the moment we are born. To further illuminate this idea that ‘we are not free to make moral decisions’, John Broadus Watson and his belief in behaviourism truly gives an insight into this matter. He stated that if one were to
Off the Precipice into the Gorge: Why Utilitarianism Can’t Save Us Introduction In his article, “A Critique of Utilitarianism” Bernard Williams is concerned that consequentialism has found plausibility in people’s minds due to a misunderstanding of and negative reaction to non-consequentialist theories.  Though he does not offer an alternative ethical theory, Williams successfully takes on the project of exploring how utilitarianism and those who uncritically embrace it have accepted an unworkable standard for defining right actions. Williams offers a unique and penetrating thesis: to define right action only by reference to whether it produces a good “state of affairs” necessitates a fundamental clash between an agent’s moral character and that allegedly right action.  In its attempt to compensate and maintain viability as a moral theory, utilitarianism smuggles into its calculus the agent’s non-utilitarian-based moral feelings. For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance.
The Strength and Vulnerability of Different Moral Views Over centuries of fervent discussion in the moral world, there is still nothing like a consensus on a set of moral views. This essay attempts to outline and critically evaluate two moral views, namely ethical objectivism and cultural relativism. It is crucial to understand that both moral theories cannot be true at the same time as it results in contradictions, contributing to false beliefs. Additionally, it is essential that we discuss these issues with an open-mind so as to gain deeper insights from them. First and foremost, we will be looking at the prominent view of ethical objectivism.
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
In the book “Moral Matters,” Chapter One, Jan Narveson writes about the two theories in morality: moral relativism and subjectivism. These theories work together to define the concept of Morality, by helping to solve our moral dilemmas, such as to explain the reasoning behind our ability to choose between right and wrong, in establishing how and why we make this choice. Thus, through these theories, we further explore morality between the connection to society and the individual, as well as determining what they have in common. Moral relativism represents the view that there are no objective ethical truths, that moral facts only hold relative to a given individual or society. According to this theory, what is morally good for one person or culture might be morally bad for another, and vice versa: there are no moral absolutes.