...“The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy,” Mark Timmons (ed.) Essays on Kant’s Moral Philosophy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy Allen Wood Yale University By the year 1768, Kant claimed to be at work on a system of ethics, under the title “metaphysics of morals” (Ak 10:74).[1] During the so-called ‘silent decade’ of the 1770s, when Kant was working on the Critique of Pure Reason, he promised repeatedly not only that he would soon finish that work but also that he would soon publish a “metaphysics of morals” (Ak 10:97, 132, 144).[2] Yet it was not until four years after the first Critique that Kant finally wrote a work on ethics, and even then he merely laid the ground for a metaphysics of morals by identifying and establishing the supreme principle on which a system of duties would be based (G 4:392). Three years later, in the Critique of Practical Reason Kant once again dealt entirely with foundational questions in moral philosophy. Kantian ethics is primarily known, especially among English-speaking philosophers, through these two ethical works of the 1780s, neither of which contains anything like a ‘metaphysics of morals’. Many of Kant’s chief works in the early 1790s are devoted to practical philosophy. The Critique of Judgment’s treatment of taste and teleology is concerned both with moral psychology and with the view of the world which a morally disposed person should take. Other works even...
Words: 10308 - Pages: 42
...In moral theology, an act is the knowing choice of a human person. Each knowing choice is an act, and each act is subject to the eternal moral law. Some acts are moral, and other acts are immoral. An immoral act is a sinful act. Sin is a knowingly chosen immoral act. The morality of any act is based on three fonts (or sources): (1) The intention or purpose for which the act is done, (2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object, (3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences. To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences. If any one font is bad, the act is immoral. If an act is immoral due to a bad intention, the same type of act may be moral with a good intention. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of act may be moral in different circumstances. But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is evil, in and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent moral meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God. Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of morality) is inherently unjust. Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting...
Words: 2755 - Pages: 12
...Applying an Ethical Theory Moral or Ethical dilemmas are an everyday occurrence in our society. The situations present two options as solutions from which one is expected to choose. There is an expectation though that one will choose the option that is considered moral. Ethical questions or problems face every human being at some point in life. One such moral question is; “is it right for women to have abortions”. Abortion has been a major cause of controversy all around the world, with people having different views on whether abortion is good or bad based on their moral beliefs. The main issue that surrounds this ethical dilemma is whether the fetus should have rights to life. Another issue is whether there is justification for a woman to perform abortion based on the rights to her body considering the fetus also has rights to life (Tännsjö, 2008). The deontological theory is not in support of abortion; the objection though, is that women also have rights over their bodies. Discussion Deontological ethics is a moral theory that is in line with common sense intuitions, the scriptures, and natural moral duties or rules. The theory mainly focuses on compliance with moral duties or rules. The main principles of the theory include a task should be carried out for the sake of the obligation. For instance, there is a duty not to do certain things such as murder, lie or break promises since these acts are considered to be wrong. The expected consequences define what the duty is...
Words: 891 - Pages: 4
...Immanuel Kant defines duty as the recognition of a moral obligation to do what is right, 100% of the time, regardless of what could come of it. Also, Kant states that in order for an act to be wholly moral, it must be carried out by a sense of duty. This type of obligation termed by Kant is called the “categorical imperative.” The categorical imperative, according to Kant, acts as a basis to which moral requirements stem from. The categorical imperative also equates to Catholicism’s’ “golden rule” in that they both call for treating human beings as ends, not as means. Duty, according to Kant, has four motives, self-interest, self-preservation, sympathy, and happiness. Kant goes on to explain that we all have a sense of moral duty that is innate in us at birth. When we have feelings of guilt, this is the end result when we have done something that has infringed this moral duty. To Kant, to act moral is to obey the moral laws, which are in us at birth, which is our duty. For example, giving a beggar money for the soul purpose of getting he or she to leave you alone is not an example of a moral duty according to Kant. Instead, he believes that a more genuine example would be someone who gives the beggar money regardless of his or her own self interest, for a reason that does not benefit him or her in any way. If a person acts in a way that benefits others while also benefiting themselves, they are not acting truly moral according to Kant’s definition. For example, doctors help...
Words: 1509 - Pages: 7
...laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological view of moral philosophy. He exposes his view of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue that an action is morally right only to the extent that it maximizes the aggregate happiness of all parties involved regardless of the motive. In the present paper, I will expose Kant’s moral precepts and the importance of duty in his Deontological principles. Then, I will evaluate Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann to analyze the ways in which his actions were in accordance to or against Kant’s moral philosophy. I will conclude my discussion with an evaluation of Mill’s approach to morality in order to examine the differences between his teleological philosophy and Kant’s ethical principles. Kant’s moral philosophy is based on the categorical imperative (CI), good will, and duty. According to the CI, it is an absolute necessity, a command that humans should accord with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without any concerns about the consequences or conditions of their actions. This concept can also be expressed in...
Words: 2811 - Pages: 12
...show discrimination of individuality. Rand used characters with ironic names such as the main one, Equality 7-2521 and Liberty 5-3000. Equality 7-2521 has become very critical of the leaders of his society by the end of the novel, denouncing them in moral terms while in the process in becoming an individual. Moral values are important to most people in the world. They are the motive power in their actions. Equality 7-2521 was not right to become so critical to the leaders of his society. Everyone’s moral values motivate people to do more than they think they can, and having Equality 7-2521 be critical and denounce them was not a helpful thing to do for the other people’s thoughts. Men have to make choices; no moral neutrality is possible when there is no escape from moral values. Therefore, Equality 7-2521 was not right for denouncing the leaders of his society in their moral terms....
Words: 583 - Pages: 3
...the considerable attraction of replacing moral intuition with the congenially down-to-earth idea of human happiness as a measure of justice. According to utilitarianism theory actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Pleasure and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and all desirable things, are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as a means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. Opponents of utilitarianism claim that, though the approach treats individual person equally, it does so only by regarding them as having no worth; their value is not as persons, but as ‘experiencers’ of pleasure or happiness. Secondly, critics query why we should regard as a valuable moral goal the mere increase in the sum of pleasure or happiness abstracted from all questions from the distribution of happiness, welfare, and so on. A kind of attack alleges that the analogy used by utilitarians, of a rational single individual prudently sacrificing present happiness for later satisfaction, is false for it treats my pleasure as replaceable by the greater pleasure of others. Kantianism: Kant’s moral philosophy is grounded on several related values. Its primary idea is that of the rational agent as a self-governing being. This is closely related to the equal dignity of all rational beings as ends in themselves, deserving of respect in all...
Words: 677 - Pages: 3
...analyzing*- similarities and differences. • Limitations and positives* • Conclusion- summary of essay and own opinion, remember to justify your own views with reasons – don’t just state your opinions without arguing for them in terms of moral values. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoTheKan http://www.slideshare.net/kljonz/individual-ethics-essay-1 There are two major ethics theories that attempt to specify and justify moral rules and principles; these are utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism (also known as consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).(1) Deontology is a ??? theory developed from the eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). The theory utilitarianism is the morality of an act that is judged by it’s utility. The greatest utility that is has for the most people; the greatest usefulness an act has for the most people. Utilitarianism states morality is not based in the act itself but in the consequences of the act. The utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act or rule is intrinsically right or wrong; it is the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule that is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or...
Words: 1646 - Pages: 7
...Standards (1) Ends-based ethics conflict with our moral intuitions. For instance, if a healthy person enters a hospital in which five people are dying for want to different organs, killing the healthy person and distributing her organs to the dying ones would produce a net-beneficial outcome by saving five lives at the cost of one, but no one would consider it moral. Thus, ends-based standards (a) are false since they produce absurd conclusions and (b) are unachievable since no one would ever willingly follow them in all cases. (2) Ends-based morality is a bad guide to action since it’s impossible to predict the ultimate net effect of any actions given that any action spawns a potentially infinite causal chain and the complexity of the circumstances in which most of our moral choices are situated. Thus, ends-based ethics should be rejected as useless; further, ends based standards are bad for debate since we can never know if either of us achieves them. (3) Ends-based moral calculi inevitably fail because of the incommensurablility of different vaules. For instance, people value freedom, love or friendship independent of the pleasure they get from them, but there’s no way to determine how much pleasure outweighs a given unit of any of those things or vice versa. (4) Even reductionist forms of consequential ethics like hedonism fail since it’s impossible to quantify experiences of pleasure or pain. Thus, there’s no way to apply ends-based rules to moral dilemmas, since...
Words: 679 - Pages: 3
...by health care providers. 2. What is the difference between killing and allowing to die? * Killing is an act of commission, the performing of an action to cause death. * Allowing to die is an act of omission, withholding potential life sustaining treatments to bring about death. 3. What is passive euthanasia? * The act of allowing a patient to die primarily by not administering life saving treatments or procedures. * Does not require active participation by health care providers. 4. What is voluntary euthanasia? * The rational decision of a terminally ill person to end their life. * Requires a comprehension of the consequences of their decision. * A person must be able to make competent decisions about their own health care. 5. What is non-voluntary euthanasia? * The decision of someone other than the patient to end that patient’s life. * Usually as a result of the patient’s inability to speak for themselves. * May not be competent to make the decision, (i.e.) Alzheimer’s disease. 6. What is the difference between ordinary treatment and extraordinary treatment? * Ordinary treatment is the application of established and standard medical procedures to sustain life. * Usually offers hope of a cure. * Not typically very expensive. * Treatments should be available to everyone. * Extraordinary treatment is the use of experimental medications and procedures to cure or extend the life...
Words: 3177 - Pages: 13
...condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4...
Words: 5485 - Pages: 22
... | | |Should the state employ torture as a method of obtaining information for the sake of protecting its citizens? | | Immanuel Kant’s philosophy is driven by his passion and concern for the dignity of the individual autonomous will. He believed that autonomous will has worth in itself because it is an end in itself. (Otteson,2009) If one is a Kantian, the use of torture to obtain information from a human being would not be an option. A true Kantian believes that all humanity should be treated with respect both in themselves and in others but never as a means to an end. In addition, one is never permitted to abuse someone’s humanity. The violent act of torturing another human being for any given reason is not moral. Further, to apply universal morality to this act the state would have to enforce the same treatment for everyone they need to obtain the truth from. Moral laws are universal principles of which all human beings are subject to. There are no excuses for breaking the moral law nor can it be manipulated to cover one’s self. A Kantian would also disagree with the maxim or reasoning behind the State’s means to use violence on another human being. There is no justification that would allow anyone to inflict harm to another human being, hoping to benefit from the act. The act of torture causes pain to the individual and the affects all parties connected to them....
Words: 1294 - Pages: 6
...common sense morality to the supreme principle of morality, which he calls the categorical imperative. Kant thinks that uncontroversial premises from our shared common sense morality, and analysis of common sense concepts such as ‘the good’, ‘duty’, and ‘moral worth’, will yield the supreme principle of morality, namely, the categorical imperative. Kant’s discussion in section one can be roughly divided into four parts: (1) The good will (2) The teleological argument. (3) The three propositions regarding duty and (4) The categorical imperative. The Good Will Kant thinks that, with the exception of the good will, all goods are qualified. By qualified, Kant means that those goods are good insofar as they presuppose or derive their goodness from something else. Take wealth as an example. Wealth can be extremely good if it is used for human welfare, but it can be disastrous if a corrupt mind is behind it. In a similar vein, we often desire intelligence and take it to be good, but we certainly would not take the intelligence of an evil genius to be good. The good will, by contrast, is good in itself. Kant writes, “A good will is not good because of what it effects or accomplishes, because of its fitness to attain some proposed end, but only because its volition, that is, it is good initself . . . .” (4:394) The precise nature of the good will is subject to scholarly debate. The Teleological Argument Kant believes that a teleological argument may be given to demonstrate that the...
Words: 4313 - Pages: 18
...Name: Hoang Nguyen Period: 2+3 Date: 05/18/18 Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy ~~~Moral is reason~~~ The main claim of Immanuel Kant is that morality come from reasoning (crash course). A thing is moral because it a right thing to do - the existence of itself is already consider good - , not because it has a good consequence. As an alternative way to put this, if a thing is acknowledged as rationally good, it is moral. So how do we know it is rationally good like Kant said? I will discuss about it later on. But first, you have to know why we must live according to that moral law. Can’t we do the bad thing if we want? Agreeing with Kant’s argument, we can’t, it is our duty to fulfil it. He reasoned all living thing ( except human ) always act...
Words: 1047 - Pages: 5
...Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century German philosopher whose moral views continue to be influential. His ethical theory is based on a deontological point of view, where the act itself has moral value regardless of the consequences. Kant dismisses emotions such as pity and compassion as irrelevant to morality and thought that making a choice based on feelings or fulfilling our desires is irrelevant when making a morally correct decision. His beliefs oppose that of moral relativism, in which a morally good act is entirely dependant on the circumstances or culture in which it takes place, instead believing in the necessity of a perfectly universalisable moral law. A significant area of ethical study for Kant was the investigation into human reasoning. His views were in response to that of the empiricists and rationalists. The rationalists attempted to prove that we can understand the world purely be using our reasoning, on the other hand empiricists argued that all of our knowledge originates from experience. Although he thought that neither approach was entirely successful, his beliefs were more closely linked with those of the rationalists. He explained that we only have knowledge of the world as it appears to us through our senses, and that humans never know the true reality of the world as we experience it through our own minds, of which various categories of thought have been built into. Therefore our scientific knowledge is only of our own experiences and perceptions...
Words: 862 - Pages: 4
