Kant Essay

kant Essay
Kants' Critiques of Pure reason and Groundwork of the Metaphysics
Kant states that, "In the order of time, therefore, we have no knowledge antecedent to experience,
and with experience all our knowledge begins, but although all of our knowledge begins with
experience, it does not follow that it all arises out of experience,"(CPR,41). What he means is that
we do not rely on experience inorder to have knowledge, but knowledge and experience are
connected for to have knowledge we must begin with experience. There are four types of knowledge
that Kant deduced. A priori, which is knowledge that is independent of experience, knowledge
which is always true, does not rely on a person to experience it inorder for one to realize that it is
true. A ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Kant affirms that, "Judgments of experience, as such, are one and all synthetic," (CPR, 49). This
makes sense because it would not make sense to found an analytic judgment on experience.
Kant thinks that the general problem of pure reason is contained in the question: How are apriori
synthetic judgments possible? Kant postulates that if he is able to figure out or understand the
conditions in which the sciences are possible to exist he can also figure out the conditions of which a
priori synthetic judgments can exist. Kant defines pure reason as, "that which contains the principles
whereby we know anything absolutely a priori. Phenomena is an object as it is perceived by the
senses, as opposed to a noumena which is an object as it is in itself independent of the mind (the
thing in itself).
Rational beings may align their "will" either with the objective laws of reason and
morality or with subjective needs and interests. Reason's demands may be called
"imperatives." "Hypothetical imperatives" command that a particular action
is necessary as a means to some purpose, such as the attainment of personal happiness. Categorical
imperatives require that some action is necessary in and of itself. Thus the categorical imperative
may be formulated as follows: act only in such a way that you could want the maxim of your action
to become a universal law. This statement can
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Kantianism By Immanuel Kant
Kantianism
Immanuel Kant was interested in the meaning of a good life, mostly doing the right thing. He was a
deontologist rather than a consequentialist, meaning that he emphasised intent rather than outcome.
He claimed that the materially best life is not the morally best life and that a morally best life is
favoured to a materially best life. Kant started his own philosophy known as Kantianism.
Even though we consider power, wealth, honour, health, and so on to be good, Kant argues that
these things are not unqualifiedly good as they can be abused. In order to comprehend the meaning
of a good life, it is essential to look for the most basic standard of unqualified good. Kant says that
no matter how hard one might try to guarantee the outcome of their actions, one may never know it;
consequently outcome is not a good contender for unqualified good. He further claims that one must
always be judged on intention rather than outcome or motivation. Therefore his argument is that
only a good will can be unqualifiedly good.
Hume reasons that all practical reasoning is hypothetical, since eventually it is determined by the
desires of the doer. He also says that moral reasoning can only be practical. Kant disagrees with this
and argues that if we think of the conclusions of practical reason as ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They are grounded in reason and apply to everyone. For Kant, categorical imperatives provide us
with the superseding reasons to act according to what is morally mandatory of us. Kant argues that
morality is sovereign of one's desires, and thus moral imperatives must be categorical imperatives
which apply with complete necessity, and whose truth can be identified through reason alone. Kant
attempts to show how his categorical imperatives can be applied, albeit they are an abstract formula
rather than a set of

Immanuel Kant Essay
The minority is a weakness to make usage of one's own appreciation without bearing from another.
This minority is self–gained when its cause lies not without seeing, but instead without assurance,
and grit to use it without heading from another. In Kant's article stating "what is Enlightenment"?
Immanuel Kant characterizes enlightenment as man's rising up out of his purposeful youthfulness.
With the goal for us to totally comprehend this definition, we should first comprehend what Kant
implied by Adolescence. In the written work Kant characterizes youthfulness as the failure to utilize
one's understanding without the direction from another. Moreover, Kant trusts that this youthfulness
is deliberate and that it is the individual's blame for without the boldness and set out to have an
independent mind, however rather pay others to think and comprehend for them. ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
I considerably concur with this thought, be that as it may, his comments on immaturity in connection
to the administration, the way individuals ought to live, and religion is very reckless and
nonsensical. In like manner, I do concur that individuals ought to have the capacity to live
uninhibitedly, and have a problem–solving attitude, in any case, I don't concur that they need to live
without standards, directions or a legislature. With regards to edification Kant trusts that freedom is
an ideal approach to accomplish enlightenment. Opportunity as per Kant is unique in relation to our
typical definition. Opportunity regarding edification implies the capacity to freely utilize one reason
in all

Kant And The Moral Law
Introduction:
Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will
argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming
with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant,
before arguing why Kant was right.
2) Meaning of Kant's Statement & Why:
According to Kant, we can control the will and meaning behind our actions. The morality of an
action should be assessed by what the motivation of the action is. The moral worth of an action
consists not in the consequences that flow from it, but in the intention from which the act is done.
This is due to the fact that , for Kant, what the motive behind your ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
We should not enforce this because it is illegal to do otherwise, we should enforce this because we
genuinely care about that child 's well–being and because we are motivated by the moral law to do
what is right.
Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and
individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it's easy for us or more favourable, but
because its right and moral.
4) The Categorical Imperative:
We see that Kant establishes that a moral action effectively consists of a moral intention motivating
that action. Therefore, doing the right thing because it is right. Kant describes motives that are
selfish, and for the wrong reasons as 'motives of inclination.' In the seatbelt example, we see a
motive of inclination behind the action of putting a seatbelt on to avoid a fine.
Kant develops a principle that we must follow in order to act morally. He explains that we have a
duty to act morally. Duties as described by Kant "are rules of some sort combined with some sort of
felt constraint or incentive on our choices, whether from external coercion by others or from our
own powers of reason." He calls this overall principle the categorical imperative and it is the
fundamental principle of our moral duties. All of our moral actions should follow and should be
justified by the categorical imperative, and this means that all

Immanuel Kant And Kant On Morality
The general definition of morality is the rules for right action and prohibitions against wrong acts.
Sometimes morality is the single set of absolute rules and prohibitions that are valid for all men at
all times and all societies. More loosely, a morality can be any set of ultimate principles, and there
may be any number of moralities in different societies. Examples would be don't cheat, don't steal,
and treat others as you would want to be treated. When dealing with the philosophers take on
morality, there are two which are usually compared to one another, Immanuel Kant and David
Hume. Immanuel Kant had many theories throughout his philosophical time. Here are some of his
ethical works, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), the Critique of Practical Reason
(1788), and the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), which contains both "the Doctrine of Right" and "the
Doctrine of Virtue." He also had some other works of importance to his moral philosophy including
the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790), Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason
(1793), and Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View (1798). Here are some of Hume's main
ethical writings, A Treatise on Human Nature (1739–40), especially books two and three, and in An
Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751). Also relevant to Hume 's ethics are various
essays, such as "Of Suicide" (1777), parts of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748),
and his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

Immanuel Kant And The Kant Essay
Immanuel Kant Lying Chiyane Peterson MCCC Ethics MW 1:30pm Parviz Dehghani Lying the one
form of communication that is the untruth expressed to be the truth. Immanuel Kant states that lying
is morally wrong in all possible ways. His hatred for lying has made him "just assumed that anyone
who lied would be operating with a maxim like this: tell a lie so as to gain some benefit."
(Landau,pp.171) This is true for a vast number of people, they will lie in order to gain a certain
benefit from the lie rather than the truth.It is similar to if you play a game of truth or dare, some
rather pick a dare because it would release them from having to tell the truth. However, those who
do pick truth still have a chance to lie to cover up the absolute truth.People lie in order to cover who
they truly are. Even if you lie to benefit someone or something else, it would not matter to Kant
because he does not care for the consequences. If you lie but have a good intention it is not the same
for Kant, he would argue that you still lied no matter the consequence that a lie is a lie. " While
lying, we accuse others for not being transparent. While being hypocrites ourselves, we expect
others to be sincere." (Dehghani,Ethics) We know how it feels to be lied to by a person, so in order
to not have the feeling returned, we hope the person will be truthful. We rather be surrounded by
truthful people constantly despite all the lies that some people tell. No

Kant Evil
Everyone wants a good will, representing a true heart and good impressions towards people. A good
will has a lot of definition like talents, courage, respects...etc. On the other hand, it can be very
negative like disrespectful, harming or hurting people. As Kant said "Understanding, wit, the power
of judgment, and like talents of the mind, whatever they might be called, or courage, resoluteness,
persistence in an intention, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt in some respects good
and to be wished for; but they can also become extremely evil and harmful, if the will that is to
make use of these gifts of nature, and whose peculiar constitution is therefore called character, is not
good." (Kant, Ak 4:393) For example, a girl is born ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
I think it is all right to have a purpose behind the duty, but it should be depends on the whether the
purpose is negative or positive. If the purpose is positive, I think it can be considered as duty. For
example, a person donates his organs to a patient, his purpose is to help the patient instead of his
own happiness, or there is a situation that the patient is important to the donor. Both of the situations
are out of good will, a good purpose, so it should be considered as a good, moral duty. To conclude,
I believed a good will is built naturally, inborn but there are factors from the growing environment
like family background, peer pressure that affects the good will. These may makes people become
evil. On the other hand, I believed no matter there is no purpose or positive purpose behind can be
considered as duty. The Kant's idea of duty is no purpose behind because he thinks duty should not
benefit to ourselves but others. Sometimes positive purposes also benefit to others instead of benefit
to

Kant, The Rallying Call For Kant 's Enlightenment
"Sapere aude!" is the rallying call for Kant's enlightenment. Translated, it roughly means dare to be
wise. Plato, through the voice of Socrates in the dialogues The Euthyphro and The Crito,
demonstrates the ultimate example of Kant's definition of enlightenment. Socrates fearlessly dares to
be wise.
In 1784, Immanuel Kant wrote a groundbreaking essay addressing a question posed by Reverend
Johann Zollner. The essay was entitled "What is Enlightenment". Within this essay, Kant defines
what enlightenment. Kant gives a very basic answer to the question "what is enlightenment?" in the
very first sentence of the essay. Kant very directly states, "Enlightenment is man 's release from his
self–incurred tutelage" (Kant, 1). This means that man prevents themselves from reaching
enlightenment by allowing themselves to stay in a state of immature "tutelage" or intellectual
dependence on others. Kant continued to explain how easy it truly is to remain in tutelage. Kant
expressed "If I have a book, which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a
physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think..." (Kant, 1)
It is once a person liberates themselves from the bonds of immaturity and begins to make their own
judgments and conjure up their own ideas that a person is actually enlightened. Not only does Kant
explain what it means to be enlightened, but Kant describes all the different requirements for
enlightenment to be achieved. This

Kant And Morality
When talking about whether or not consequences of an act have anything to do with morality, one
must think of all the ways in which an individual's acts could be considered morally wrong.
Morality relates to conduct, whereas they both involve some type of action that is partaken by the
individual, which can be mistaken as being "good" even though the consequences are considered
bad (Dewey, 1891).When a person performs an action, and the outcome of that action is a negative
one, we often find ourselves blaming anything other than the individual themselves because we
believe they had no foresight on what was going to happen. Dewey describes that when conduct and
character are involved in telling if somebody is being moral, or immoral, we are unable to say
whether or not the action was good or bad until we know how that action turns out and we know
what the consequences are. (Dewey, 1891).
In order to decide whether or not a consequence of an action is morally good, or morally wrong, one
must first recognize ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Duties and laws apply to an individual and their morality. Kant states that morality cannot be based
on man, we cannot base morality on experiences because morality is unconditioned. (Kant, 1998).
Metaphysical philosophy is pure, much as morality is unconditioned and pure. Metaphysics applies
to our efforts of understanding the world around us, it is independent from all experiences and
knowledge and applies to all, much as morality applies to all. Metaphysics cannot be compared to
the empirical because the empirical is based on our experiences, it is completely individual and
therefore cannot be applied to all morality. Kant states that you cannot understand practical morals
without metaphysics. (Kant, 1998). This is the basis of understanding whether or not Kant believes
consequences of an act have anything to do with

Immanuel Kant And Kant 's Philosophy Essay
Immanuel Kant in his work "An answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" reflects his
understanding of immaturity as the main source for not being enlighten(p.41). It is true that Kant
animalized human beings ,"It is so easy to be immature" is best understood as an attack towards
human beings' because of our naiveté. It is only normal for us to apprehend knowledge from others.
Immanuel Kant emphasizes on the lack of self–esteem, caring, and trustworthiness in ourselves. The
lack of zeal to discover what is good for thyself and what is not. An immature person has always
been known as somebody who cannot take care of himself. The immature will never seek to
understand on his own but borrow ideologies from others. According to Kant immaturity is the
inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another (WE p.41). Assuredly, we can
see throughout the text that Kant is not stressing on an age or period in our lives to be able to
eventually be matured enough to takes "grown up" affairs into consideration and become mature.
What he really means is that we must learn how to be dependent by ourselves, Kant states" for after
falling a few times they would end. certainly learn to walk ( WE p.41). However, the claim that Kant
mentioned does not mean that we must learn how to become geniuses by our own instinct, this
would be quite a ludicrous claim to state, but he is trying to emphasize on the fact that we take too
much time to do so after we have the means and

Kant Disinterestedness
Reflective judgement requires taking into account Kant's four factors of beauty: quality, necessity,
universality, and purposiveness. When applying judgement to an object, a person must first inspect
the quality of the object. Whether or not an object is able to instill the feeling of pleasure or
displeasure on the observer. However, the pleasure one acquires from an object must not be limited
to the observer's personal desires. That is, he must not secretly crave the objects. By suppressing
one's desire for an object, the observer perverts his judgement of the object. Consequently, in the
section entitled "Second Moment", Kant believes that a person judges beauty through the unbiased
concept of disinterestedness. Kant refers to disinterestedness ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Kant believes that, when we admire an object, we do so because we are attracted to why we find the
object stimulating. The problem lies in the fact that we cannot locate the source of the object's
purpose. That is to say, the object draws the observer to it, stimulates the senses, and fills the
observer with a yearning to inquire more about the object. For Kant, in order for an object to be
beautiful, we must recognize that the object has a purpose. However, we cannot limit the purpose of
the object based on its utility. These four factors are what Kant believes validates his theory that
judgements of beauty are both subjective and

Kant On Good Will
Nothing is good without limitation, except good will.
Our character traits, temperament, and talents can be good or evil, beneficial or harmful.
Even our "good" fortune (properties we are born into or receive by chance) can be used for good or
arrogantly; good will bends it to good purpose.
Anyone (rational impartial spectator) would be dissatisfied upon seeing another person lacking good
will yet enjoying life's riches.
Thus, good will is a necessary condition for deserving happiness.
Even those qualities (here he considers moderation, self–control, and sober reflection) which
support good will cannot be held as absolutely good (good without limitation); they still require a
good will.
Good will has supreme value by virtue of its consideration ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Surely, then, reason serves not the aim of happiness, but "another aim for existence possessing much
more dignity."
This "other aim" is the highest good, for which reason is a necessary ingredient. For natural ends,
instinct (drives to satisfy hunger, thirst, and the need for shelter) is sufficient; however, the greatest
good demands reason. This is so because the greatest good may adversely affect the individual who
by reason is contemplating a course of action.
Kant then discusses the concept of duty: does it always serve the good, or can it also be self–
serving? Even the preservation of life must be considered as either conforming with duty or arising
from duty, a moral obligation. Thus, only actions which have moral value can be sufficiently
described as duty.
Happiness is a powerful motivator; lack thereof can lead one to violate one's duties.
Motivation to satisfy one inclination and achieve happiness in the present can outweigh
consideration of a later (i.e., more distant temporally) consequence. Abiding by one's duty to
achieve happiness provides moral value.
Thus, love as a duty can be commanded; such love is practical and based on the will not melting

Kant And Kant 's View On Life And Most
"If you do what you need ,your surviving. If you do what you want, your living". Philosophers Mill
and Kant both share similarities and differences on their view on life and most of all on the meaning
of a "good life. Mill bases morality on the principle of utility which states , that " actions or
behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure , wrong as they tend to produce
unhappiness or pain". While Kant bases morality on the categorical imperative which is, "an
unconditional moral obligation that is blinding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a
person's inclination or purpose". Mill and Kant both join in their proposed first rule of profound
quality a sort of all inclusiveness, for Kant's situation that of confining one's standards of activity to
people who it can serve to be a widespread law of nature, for Mill's situation considering the
outcomes of a sort of activity for all people. Both perceive transitional good guidelines , called by
Kant "obligations" and by Mill "subordinate standards". Accordingly the 2 philosophers have a 2
step origination of moral thought. A "basic level" that offered moderate good standards against the
first guideline of profound quality and a performance stage that allows for settles on a choice in a
specific case on the premise of the important good principles. The obligations to others perceived by
Kant relate to the subordinate standards perceived by

Enlightenment Kant
Enlightenment, according to Emmanuel Kant is the rise of the human beings from the inability to
use their own understanding without relying on other people's guidance. It is the emergence of a
person from his/her immaturity or minority in terms of making decisions for him/herself. If this
immaturity is self imposed if cause lies not because the person lacks understanding, but because
he/she lacks courage and resolve to use his/her own understanding without the help from another
person. A person is said to be enlightened is he/she has the courage to use his/her own understanding
to make a decision without the help of another person. Enlightenment is having the courage to use
one's understanding in making a decision that is at hand (Kant & Rauch, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Hume argued that the character of a society is influenced mainly by moral values in the same
manner that individuals that constitute the society are influenced rather than physical outlook of the
society. Hume argued that our nationalities make a difference to us mainly in the way of national
characters. He referred to society as "nation" and argued that a nation is a group of individuals with
national association whose manners are often determined by moral causes (Valls, 2005). In
discussing qualities such as generosity, human intelligence, gaiety and warlike nature of different
nations' both in ancient and modern times, Hume argued that people from the same nationality
behave in similar ways, national characters and national self CORE HUMANITIES
(ARGUMENTATIVE

Kant And Kant 's Philosophy
"A transcendental principle is one by which we think the universal a priori condition which alone
things can become objects of our cognition in general[.]"
–Immanuel Kant, p 20 of Critique of Judgment This quote most aptly describes Kant's purpose in
writing a critique of aesthetic judgment, with the most important term being "transcendental." The
Oxford Dictionary defines the word as "presupposed in and necessary to experience" (what Kant
refers to as a priori). In this sense, it is something that pertains to elements of human experience and
then in turn conditions human knowledge. Basically (and specific to this essay and to Kant's theory),
what needs to be present for a judgment of aesthetics to occur? Kant divides the "Analytic of
Aesthetic Judgment" into four moments according to the four divisions of the table of logical
functions of judging: quality, quantity, relation and modality. In doing research for this essay, I
found that Kant was interested in analytical investigations into many subjects and did so in an
almost scientific fashion, so this sort of division makes sense. Each moment is serial, and the
questions raised in one moment are then addressed in the following moment. "I have used the
logical functions of judging to help me find the moments that judgment takes into consideration
when it reflects" (Kant, pg. 43). Based on this context, these moments are not temporal moments,
but more realms of thought or consideration. How are the conceptual

Kant Analysis
However, there seems to be a foundational flaw in Kant's logic that he uses to justify synthetic a
priori statements, like the ones from above, that defeat the argument. The issue sprouts from how to
think about a term's definition. Being true by definition is a quality of a priori knowledge and also
analytic statements, but Kant, in a sense, is attempting to argue that not all things true by definition
are analytic knowledge. Consider what a definition really is, where it originated, and how it was
derived. A definition of a word describes it in detail and was created, whether it was your own
personal spin on a term's definition a basic dictionary explanation that someone at some point
crafted, definitions are all subjectively man–made. Looking ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As we explained before, basic math is always a priori since it is able to be derived with reason alone
without the need of sensory experience. The argument for simple addition being a type of synthetic
statement in this context seems to be justified because new information, the addition of five, is being
used to derive a new concept, the number twelve, from another concept, the number seven. By
making a further observation to this, there are areas that do not seem consistent with the usual
justification of a synthetic statement. For something to be a synthetic statement, you must derive a
new attribute to a concept by getting information from somewhere outside of the concept itself. At
first glance, it seems as though this was accomplished, but taking a closer look you would realize
that the number twelve is not an extension of the number seven. Twelve says nothing about seven, it
is an entirely new standalone concept, although it is derived from seven, it is not a feature of seven
and provides no new information about it. The closest possible rebuttal one may argue is to say that
twelve, in this context, delivers information about what happens to seven when one is to add five to
it. It does not feel strong enough to close the case, considering that twelve is still a whole separate
entity from seven, but even if that

Kant On Lying
Immanuel Kant, a philosopher who has strong opinions against lying has puzzled many critical
thinkers in philosophy. Kant creates a troubling situation on where a murderer is at the door asking
whether or not the victim, he or she is looking for is hiding and whether are not one should lie or tell
the truth about the victim's current hiding spot. An individual has a sense of inclination to do what is
right, however Kant is acknowledging that if one does testify where the victim is then one is surely
respecting the murderers intentions. Furthermore, the murderer's devious actions are now placed
upon the witness. In addition to this example, a Nazi is at the door wanting to know if one has seen
or is captivating any Jewish individuals. According ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Meaning that a maxim is a principle of how one acts and how others should act too. According to
Kant, one should not be an exception to lie. In an event that one allegedly lies, and the victim was
coming out of their hiding spot, "and the murderer encounters him while going away and perpetrates
his deed on him, then you can by right be prosecuted as the author of his death" (8, 427). Still, one
cannot possibly have for seen those events. Under these circumstances, Kant insists the liar is still
partially responsible for the victim's downfall. This notion that is clearly irrational demonstrates how
little Kant has to argue about this topic.
Even if the truth was told and the deed finished, then responsibility was shared. However, Kant does
go and claims if one told the truth to the best of his knowledge, "then neighbors might have come
and apprehended the murder while he was searching the house for his enemy and the deed would
have been prevented" (8, 427). Although I agree with Kant up to a point, I cannot accept his
overriding assumption that lying to save a life is considered guilty by the civil

Kant Essay example
Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not
ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would've ironically disagreed with its modern
proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For
example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from
committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would've
argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using
him as a means to an end. A rational being, in Kant's view, is an end in himself, whether criminal or
law–abiding citizen. We would thus be violating his humanity. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, the question becomes this: for equality to be served, how would punishment fit the
crime? Is it appropriate to deprive a thief of his property? In the case of murder, Kant would view
the death sentence as the only adequate response. There is nothing proportional to the crime of
murder other than depriving the life of the killer. Anything less would leave the scales of justice out
of balance. Kant offers us strong words in this regard. "If society were to suddenly to abolish itself
the last murder lying in prison ought to be executed...that everyone may realize the desert of his
deeds," and "that bloodguiltiness may not remain upon the people." (Kant: anderson) However, if a
criminal were to torture his victim to death, must he be exposed to the same fate? If we follow his
line of argument, it would seem that Kant would answer yes. Jus talionis.
Let the punishment be proportional to the crime. Let the criminal suffer as his victim. But here's
where Kant surprises us.
Most of us would agree that torture is inhuman. If we were to apply jus talionis in this regard, we
would in essence become criminals ourselves. Kant seems to realize this when he states the
following: "His [the murderer's] death... must be kept free from all maltreatment that would make
the humanity suffering in his person loathsome or abominable." (Kant:

Kant Good Will
The value of an action varies in regards to the qualifications of such. Mill found value in the
consequentialist motives of an instrumental utilitarianistic will; Socrates emphasized the refinement
of virtues in the proceeding actions of good men. Immanuel Kant took a differing approach to this,
boldly stating that a "good will" is the only thing with "full value in itself" (394); making the claim
that the source of value lies solely within the motive of the action itself. While earlier philosophers
emphasized happiness as the end goal of all humanity, Kant sought after the fallacy in these claims.
He found deontology as the final remaining factor uncorrupted by the possibility of human
perversion, leading to a good will being the only marker of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
If, even with man's best effort, nothing is achieved, any process of good will must be regarded as
such (394). This marks a definite shift in philosophical thought; the consideration of good without
any remark on the consequences of one's actions and thoughts. Kant does not emphasize the creation
of happiness as the goal of one's choices, since happiness is a subjective marker open to corruption
(396). Multiple actions can produce this result, while the same action can differ in its consequences.
This uncertainty necessitates a different, more concrete definition of moral value. Value then, can be
derived in the purity of one's motivation. Regardless of the outcome of such, intentions of good will
can never be unappreciated as lesser than. It exists as the foundation of all that can be regarded as
valuable, and must be the first step in the evaluation of the quality of one's actions. When one acts
from duty, rather than simply alongside of it, their actions have moral value (397–8). Duty stands as
the definitive motivator of one's action, of which the true intent can be derived

Kant And Kant 's Moral Ethics
According to Kant, We have these absolute duties to ourselves and these duties to oneself become
the supreme principle of all duties. Therefore, these supreme self–duties are the reason why moral
ethics exist, and without our duties to oneself there would be no other duties, nor would we, as a
species, survive at all. However, these self–regarding duties can be very contradicting, but can help
us understand the bigger picture of the categorical imperative.
Kant believes that we must "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law." (Grounding, 421) This one and only categorical
imperative is the starting principle of all other imperatives of duty. In relation to these imperatives,
duties to others are derived from our own duties to ourselves. Initially, Kant introduces both perfect
and imperfect duties to oneself and to others, which ultimately follow the categorical imperative.
First the perfect duty to oneself is to not commit suicide. This duty questions the principle of self–
love and how it can be held as a universal law of nature, but this is where the contradiction begins.
In this example, the principle of self–love cannot be a universal law because in this case this "law
would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of
life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature." (Grounding, 422) Therefore, the
opposite of this maxim of retaining

Kant Judgement
In The Critique of Judgment by Immanuel Kant, Kant describes to readers what makes a judgment
of taste valid. To be specific, Kant says that one must be disinterested in an object in order to truly
find the object beautiful. This can be seen in his quote: "One must not be in the least prepossessed in
favour of the thing, but must preserve complete indifference in this respect, in order to play the part
of judge in matters of taste" (Cahn and Meskin 132). To Kant, disinterest means that the person who
is judging the object is not interested in neither the existence or the destruction of the object. To
illustrate, someone who has made a painting that they are going to sell; may find their own creation
beautiful. However, their judgement is not

Kant and Equality
KANT AND EQUALITY Some readers of this essay will have become impatient by now; because
they believe that the problem that perplexes me has been definitively solved by Immanuel Kant. It is
certainly true that Kant held strong opinions on this matter. In an often–quoted passage, he reports a
personal conversion from elitism: "I am myself a researcher by inclination. I feel the whole thirst for
knowledge and the eager unrest to move further on into it, also satisfaction with each acquisition.
There was a time when I thought this alone could constitute the honor of humanity and despised the
know nothing rabble. Rousseau set me straight. This delusory superiority vanishes, I learn to honor
men, and I would find myself more useless than a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Individuals who equally have the capacity to set an end may well differ in the quality of their end–
setting performances. Some are able to set ends more reasonably than others. But these differences
in performance do not gainsay the fundamental equal capacity. It is just that having a high or low
level of associated capacities enables or impedes successful performance. So the fact that
individuals differ in their abilities to do arithmetic and more complex mathematical operations that
affect their ability to make rational choices should have no tendency to obscure the more basic and
morally status–conferring equality in the capacity of each person to make choices. In response: First
of all, if several of these no degree capacities were relevant to moral status, one must possess all to
be at the top status, and some individuals possess more and others fewer of the relevant capacities, a
problem of hierarchy, though perhaps a manageable one, would emerge anew. More important, I
doubt there is a plausible no degree capacity that can do the work this argument assigns to it. Take
the capacity to set ends and make choices. Consider a being that has little brain power, but over the
course of its life can set just a few ends and make just a few choices based on considering two or
three simple alternatives. It sets one end (lunch, now) per decade three times over the course of its
life. If there is

Kant 's Principles Of Kant
The work of Immanuel Kant focuses on the idea that of everything in the world it is only good will
that can be taken as "good without qualification" (Kant, 393). Unlike qualities or talents, which can
be used both for good and for bad, good will is considered by Kant to be unequivocally good.
Therefore, Kant's principles require an individual to make decisions only based rationally upon the
principles, or maxim, behind that decision, without consideration of the consequences that that
action will bring about. Here, I will be evaluating a particular scenario and evaluating the morally
right decision based solely on the principles of Kant. According to Kant, the morally right act must
come from a decision taken by an individual because it is one's duty, as opposed to a decision that is
performed merely in accordance with duty. The significance there is that an act cannot be morally
right in and of itself if it is not performed for the right reason. As a result, it is particularly important
to evaluate the duties at play in this scenario as opposed to the outside motivating forces and
inclinations that the individual may have in the situation. The particular circumstance that I will
analyze concerns an individual who is sheltering Anne Frank and her family. The individual is one
day confronted by the Gestapo who demand to know if that individual is sheltering Jews, to which
the individual must decide whether to lie and protect the Frank family or to tell the truth and

Kant Biography
He was born in 1724, in the Baltic city of Konigsberg, which was part of Prussia and now belongs to
Russia, renamed to Kaliningrad. Konigsberg was a town on the eastern sea port of Prussia it was a
town dominated by a castle cathedral and the university and alone some senses it was
geographically something of an outpost because it was a seaport it had a fairly rich intellectual and
cultural life Kant was born into a relatively modest family his father Johan Kant was a saddle maker
and his mother came from a saddle making family also. Kant never had much money, he lived very
modestly. It wasn't until his fifties, did he became a fully salaried professor and attained a moderate
degree of prosperity. Kant was physically very slight, frail, yet ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
That people had a great need to promote ethical behavior, which of course is still true today. With
this Kant came up with the idea called the "Categorical Imperative", which could also be known as
"Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals." This meant, "Act only according to that maxim by
which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." When I first read that I
had to read it couple of times and then ask myself. What did this mean? Then realized that it meant
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you." With this being said it was offering him a
way of testing the morality of an action by imagining how it would be if it were practiced and you
were the victim of it. For us it could be as simple as taking something from work. But if we all did it
then we wouldn't have supplies and would have to be guarded. A bit like if you can do it, I can do it
too and expect you to be okay with it. The categorical imperative is designed our perspective, to get
us to see our own behavior in less immediately personal terms and thereby recognize some of its
limitations. Kant went on to argue that this idea could be stated in another way: Act so as to treat
people always as ends in themselves, never as mere

Kant And Kant 's Philosophy
Immanuel Kant was an exceptional philosopher who often fantasized about the wonders of the
human perception. Through the power of imagination in the human mind Kant was able to postulate
possible answers to the great questions of existence. He was daring and bold to wonder what
constitutes the beauty of the human soul, how the existence of an all–powerful entity would be
possible, and also what do human beings really do to perceive their surroundings. With such notable
works as Critiques of Practical Reason, Metaphysics of Morals, and Critique of Judgement, Kant
attempted to answer these great questions. Kant asked powerful questions, questions that would
have and still do have a lot of controversy surrounding them today. Kant often debated the
differences between rationalist and empirical approaches to philosophical issues. Not only were his
methods ingenious, but additionally somewhat unorthodox. With this in mind, what did Kant exactly
aim to why he abandoned traditional philosophical approaches in his works such as Critiques of
Practical Reason and Metaphysics of Morals? Also what prompted him to answer such philosophical
conundrums regarding the perception and experience of the self? And finally what exactly was his
stance on perceivable reality and the complexity of our world? First, what inspired Kant to abandon
traditional and established thoughts of philosophy regarding his views of the human experience? In
order to think about this, one must consider the state of

Kant And Kant 's Metaphysical Theorizing
Kant's metaphysical theorizing was in large part focused on the matter of how synthetic a–priori
judgements were possible. For Kant, the question of how synthetic a–priori judgements operated
was central to understanding the nature of human thinking, and to enabling metaphysics. Previously
Kant had been alerted to the writings of David Hume. Hume had effectively claimed that knowledge
only came from analytic a–priori judgments or by synthetic a–posteriori. Hume criticized the notion
of cause and effect, and claimed it to be product of conventions of thought, rather than reason. Kant
had recognized that if Hume's claims were to be regarded and applied to other key concepts, that it
would undermine the basis of metaphysics; due the criticisms ability to be applied to many other key
notions of the world. Since metaphysics was being called into question, and it seemed that people
were not making progress in metaphysical understanding in the way the sciences seemed to have
been doing, Kant figured that he needed to discern away in which metaphysics was possible, and
could be established as a science.
Kant begins by considering how metaphysics could be determined. This would involve figuring its
object, sources of cognition, and /or type of cognition. Firstly, metaphysics must be non–empirical,
and its principles and basic ideas must not be derived from experience. Thus, metaphysics must be
a–priori cognition "coming from pure understanding and pure reason". It is distinguished

Kant On Morality
We will be concerned with Kant's theory on morality and rather or not it is convincing. I will argue
about on how the good will is "The only thing that is absolutely good, good in itself and without
qualification, is the good will" (pg. 127). All natural virtue, both clever and moral can contribute to
wicked acts. Sometimes we assume that if we are successful in life and happy then that's all we
need, but in order to be successful we need integrity and recognition that can steer us in the direction
of satisfaction. I will argue that Kant's theory on morality is rather very convincing in this paper,
how hypothetical and categorical imperatives are different but a key factor. Likewise, that the
principle law of nature is the core to the categorical

Kant Dualism
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. He synthesized early
modern rationalism and empiricism, set the terms for much of the nineteenth and twentieth century
philosophy, and continues to exercise a significant influence today in metaphysics, epistemology,
ethics, political philosophy, aesthetics, and other fields. Kant was involved in the crisis of the
enlightenment. Enlightenment is about thinking for oneself rather than letting others think for you. It
was to replace traditional authorities with the authority of individual human reason, but it was not
about overturning traditional moral and religious beliefs. (Stanford.edu, 2010)
Metaphysical idealism is an ontological doctrine that holds that reality itself ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
(Schenck, K., 2014 pg. 120)
Idealism is an interesting way of thinking. When you have never studied or thought about the
different ways the mind works, it can be very interesting and confusing subject. Thinking of material
and nonmaterial things, how many Gods we have, human or nonhuman, and whether or not
something is true.
Ethics is the area of philosophy that has to do with how to live in the world. Hardly any area of
philosophy is more directly applicable to "real life" than ethics, because it deals with the kinds of
decisions we have to make both in the long and short term. There are two basic perspectives of
ethics, Act– based approaches to ethics predictably focus on doing what we should or should not do,
how we should act. Virtue–based ethics, as it is called, is more focused on things like character,
motives, and true happiness rather than on whether specific actions are right or wrong. Also there
are at least three different kinds of act–based approaches to ethics, duty–based ethics, utilitarianism,
and Egoist. The problem with all ethical theories is the complexity of life. Life is filled with no–win
situations. (Schenck, K., 2014 pg.

Kant On War
" Peace cannot be kept by force , it can only be achieved by understanding" This quote was stated by
Albert Einstein. Peace is defined as a state of tranquility or silence. An example of peace would be ,
a state of security or order within a community that have laws in place. Another definition of peace
is a period of mutual understanding between the nations. Immanuel Kant was an individual who
expressed the concept of republic peace in which international relation scholars named " democratic
peace" . Do you agree that there could be peace among countries in the world? Historically , world
peace was not achieved because of empires such as France, great Britain, Germany and the soviet
union started wars so they could be number one in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Disarmament , demobilization and reintegration are three major aspects of post –conflict
consolidation that have been displayed obviously in the authorization of peacekeeping operations
over the last twenty years. Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of
small arms ,ammunition ,explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and from the
civilian population. Demobilization is the discharge of active combatants from the armed forces and
groups which includes a phase of "reinsertion that provides short term assistance to ex–combatants.
Reintegration is defined as the process in which ex–combatants acquire civilian status and gain
sustainable employment and income. It is also a political, social and economic process that has an
accessible time frame which is generally taking place in local communities. This clearly illustrates
that world peace can exist among countries

Essay on Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant 1724–1804
Immanuel Kant was born on April 22, 1724 in Konigsberg, East Prussia. He was the son of a
saddler. At age 8, he entered the Collegium Fredericianum, a Latin school, where he remained for 8
1/2 years and studied the classics. He then entered the University of Konigsberg in 1740 to study
philosophy, mathematics, and physics. The death of his father halted his university career so he
became a private tutor. In 1755, he returned to Konigsburg where he later resumed his studies. In
1756, he received a degree and was made a lecturer, and in 1770 he became a professor.
Kant felt he had to adhere to a very strict schedule during his years as a professor. He would get up
shortly before five ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In 1798, the year following his retirement from the University, Kant published a summary of his
religious views. He died on February 12, 1804.
During his lifetime, Kant produced many writings. Scholars usually divide his literary career into
two periods: the Pre–critical period and the Critical period. During the Pre–critical period, 1747 to
1781, he wrote many non–fictional works and criticisms. Some of them were "Thoughts on
the True Estimation of Living Forces", "On Fire", "A New Explanation of
the First Principles of Metaphysical Knowledge", and "On the Forms and Principles of
the Sensible and Intelligible World". From 1770 to 1780, he mainly worked on preparing
"The Critique of Pure Reason".
The Critical period lasted from 1781 to 1794. During this period, he wrote "The Critique of
Pure Reason" in 1781, and "Foundation for the Metaphysics of Ethics" in 1785.
Following the critical works, Kant published "Critique of Practical Reason",
"Critique of Judgment", and "Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason".
Three main discussions of Kant are Duty, the Formula of the End, and the Kingdom of Ethics. Kant
feels that we act morally when we do our duty, however it is important to distinguish between acting
according to duty and acting from duty. Acting according to duty is when someone else has imposed
the duty. This is an

Kant And Kant 's Universal Law Essay
Does Kant successfully establish that one must never under any circumstances or for any purpose
tell a lie?
In this essay, I will argue that Immanuel Kant fails to successfully establish lying as morally
impermissible because the claim that lying is morally impermissible goes against common sense.
Kant defines his Universal Law to demonstrate the necessary action one must take in order to act in
a way that is morally permissible and uses it in support of his belief that one's motive is the sole
determinant of the moral worth of his actions. He uses the Universal Law Theorem to determine
whether it should be morally permissible to lie in any occasion, and consistently reaches the
conclusion that is it not (Kant & Paton, 2005). However, let us consider an example situation: An
elderly woman is awoken during the night to pounding on the door from a handful of children
claiming to have just escaped the captivity of a pedophile in the neighbourhood. She immediately
takes the children into her home, promising to keep them safe for the night. Before she has the
chance to contact the authorities and their parents, she hears the sounds of a man raging outside,
screaming about lost children. The woman answers the door calmly, claiming to have just been
awoken and scolds the younger man for being so rowdy, sternly telling him she has not seen any
children and encouraging him to return home before she contacts the authorities.
Utilitarian, defined as system of ethics to help

Kant Embryo
Kant believes that the CI is moral principle that is in fact objective. This system gives people
autonomy which is the ability to make decisions. You have the choice of following the laws morally
or immorally. Everyone should be treated as a person. Everyone is human and everyone is valuable.
We should respect all humans. There can no set price on a certain or any human being. No matter
what anyone thinks.
Charlie's parent wanting or even deciding to do this procedure is a choice of immortality. The
parents would not be respecting the worth of this embryo, who is above price. This is a human
being, who soon has the potential of being a baby. They are not valuing the embryo as a baby, child
or human. They are just valuing the service he or she will provide for them. The procedure would
allow Charlie's parents to have a child that would be most able to donate blood–making cells to
Charlie. This would probably save Charlie's life. There is no dignity here, therefore the parents are
acting immorally. The parents should treat that soon to be child as a person with dignity. Not just
having the child as pleasure of saving another child's life. They are treating it as an instrument.
Charlie's parents should recognize the embryo that may best be able to donate red blood cells, which
would soon be a child, as a person capable of making reasonable choices. That egg is person and is
does not lack the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Charlies parents are creating a human life with the express intent of saving another life by using
vitro fertilization, but screening he embryo to figure out which would be most able to donate blood–
making cells. In the circumstance of their child having a disease in which he does not have enough
red blood cells. After which he may be able survive because he will have someone who may be able
to donate the same blood with red blood cells. They are merely using this baby as way to save

Kant And Kant 's Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant, an 18th–century moral philosopher, had contended that the fundamental principle
of morality is the Categorical Imperative, from here will be additionally labeled as (CI) or otherwise
mentioned. He supported his view by suggesting a pure moral philosophy; a metaphysics of morals
that is not solely for rational beings to explore different¬ sources of basic moral principles that are
found through their own observational experience a priori, but additionally for the sake of morality
as it remain vulnerable to all types of corruption. In this paper, I will explain Kant's Categorical
Imperative, break down and analyze the components of the imperative and how he comes to the
conclusion of a Categorical Imperative being a necessary component of morality. I will also explain
the term 'ought' and how it defines a role in determining the boundaries of the Categorical
Imperative and what Kant means by maxims and their role of inspiring our actions. At the
conclusion of this paper, I intend to reach the conclusion that Kant's Categorical Imperative is a
fundamental principle of morality and offers a good foundation for actions pursuant of moral ends.
The Categorical Imperative is broken down in two parts. The first is determining what an imperative
is. Kant suggests that everything in nature and the world works in accordance with laws and that
only rational beings possess the capability of acting in accordance with those laws. Rational beings,
referring are able to

Kant On Enlightment
In the essay "What is Enlightment?" Immanuel Kant discusses his thoughts on enlightment and what
it takes for a society to reach it. In Kant's words, "Enlightment is man's emergence from his self–
imposed immaturity"; he uses the term "immaturity" as a way to describe someone who uses other
peoples thoughts to make up for their own instead of thinking for themselves. Kant then states that
these people are scared and lazy and choose to not think for themselves because they were never
allowed to in the first place so they became dependent on others thinking for them. However, Kant
believed that if a society was given freedom, they'll slowly be able to reach enlightment. Which is
where public and private use of reason come into place. Kant described

Compare And Contrast Immanuel Kant And Kant
I will compare Immanuel Kant's and John Stuart Mills' methods of determining the moral action in a
situation by using the issue of abortion, and come to conclusion of whose argument is stronger.
Abortion is the discontinuation of a pregnancy, which is generally followed by the death the fetus
(Merriam–Webester), and there are many moral questions raised with the issue which make it a
heated topic in popular culture. The one that will be discussed in this paper included is it morally
right to kill if the fetus is a person, if the mother's life is in danger, if the mother's life is not in
danger, if the pregnancy was accidental.
Immanuel Kant is a 18th century philosopher who constructed a moral decision making model in his
book, "Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals", which he calls the Categorical Imperative, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mills uses the laws of science to point out that the test of what is right and wrong has to do with the
means, and argues that Utilitarianism views of these means to be the highest( Mills 362–3). Mills
argues that Utilitarianism's creed, or foundation of morals, are when actions are done properly; they
promote happiness or pleasure, and if it done improperly, they tend to lead to pain or a privation of
pleasure. (Mills 365) He believes that the principle of morality that should be followed is, what he
call, the Greatest Happiness Principle which the pursuit of pleasure with the prevention or avoidance
of pain (Mills 368). He also believes that the aim of man is not just his happiness but the happiness
of all. ( Mills 367) Mills argues the the spirit of Utilitarianism is is the Golden Rule (Mills 370), "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Matt. 7:12). Mills also argues the morality of an
action is not found in its motive, but the motive tells the worth of the agent perform the action (Mills

Kant On Euthanasia
Philosophy 1610
22 April 2013
Euthanasia or Just Plain Murder:
The Mercy Death/Killing Debate
Euthanasia is the practice of ending a life in order to release an individual from unbearable suffering
or an incurable disease. Euthanasia the word is derived from Ancient Greek, Eu meaning "good" and
Thantos meaning "Death" and when combined the term means "Good Death". Mercy Death by
definition is taking a direct action to terminate a person's life because the person has requested to do
so. This also includes physician assisted suicide, not to be confused with suicide which is the taking
of one's life by one's own hand without assistance. Mercy Killing is also a term used and it refers to
someone taking a direct action to terminate a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Since we've established that Kant is strongly against euthanasia; at least active euthanasia. We can
now discuss the arguments of Thiroux in relativity to this debate. Active euthanasia, it is in direct
violation of the value of life principle. This means that the involvement of taking a life usually
means killing an innocent person. This is unlike the defense of an innocent, war or capital
punishment. It can also be open to the domino argument, which essentially argues if human beings
allow one thing to be declared legal or moral; this could cause a multitude of others bad things to
follow. The church also have the argument over religious practices and means that God gave us life
as a gift, so why should we have the right to take it away again? The religious aspect has many
different reasons for being against euthanasia but all religions stem from the belief of a higher power
or being giving us the gift of life. There are also other available options as in possibly of finding a
cure or using hospice as an alternative. So in result Immanuel Kant has his own ethical theory and
arguments revolving around the taking of one's life via euthanasia, therefore many arguments or
debates can be given to defend the right not to take another individuals life based on one's own
ethical views.
A second ethical theory that can be raised is what stance does Utilitarianism takes on the debate of
euthanasia. A brief definition of Utilitarianism is

Critique Of Kant
Defining Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and its Relation to the Science of Metaphysics
The understanding itself, in regard to representations and objects, is the paramount focus of
Immanuel Kant's (1724–1804), Critique of Pure Reason (1781/1787). Although there is a manifold
of philosophical definitions of what the critique of pure reason is defined as, this essay will assist in
alleviating the flux that occurs when comprehending the meaning of Kant's, Critique of Pure
Reason. After reading most of Kant's critique, in relation to Metaphysics, the critique of pure reason
is a way of making that branch of philosophy a true possibility, then an actual science. An argument
can be made that one definition formulates a foundation for ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In order to fully comprehend what a court of justice is, the concept of "indifferentism," must be
clearly defined. Kant states that indifferentism is, "the mother of chaos and night in the sciences, but
at the same time, also the origin, or at least the prelude, of their incipient transformations and
enlightenment, when through ill–applies effort they have become obscure, confused, and useless" (A
x). Indifference is harming to metaphysics because it allows people to ignore what they naturally
compelled to answer about representations, objects, and results. In summary, Kant's critique of pure
reason is a court of justice, which gives humanity the ability to determine and separate the invalid
flaws and falsities that are holding is an endless fate, from the valid right rules and principles that
help us answer metaphysical inquisitions. After Kant defines the court of justice, he then introduces
a new term that helps define a critique of pure reason, a critique of the faculty of reason.
Kant offers another important definition in regard to a critique of pure reason in which he uses the
term "a critique of the faculty of reason," which will be fully defined in order to comprehend the
next element of what a critique of pure reason is. Kant defines "critique of the faculty of reason in
general, in respect of all the cognitions after which reason might strive independently of all
experience, and hence the decision about the possibility or

Kant : Kant 's Ethics
Khaled AlMarwani
Philosophical Ethics PHL270
Dr. Elizabeth F. Cooke
Question # 1: Kant's Ethics According to my humble reading, Kant is considered the hardest to read,
grasp and understand among the philosophers that we came across studying ethics. According to
Kant, nothing could be called good without qualification except a good will. And the good will is
the desire or the tendency to do your duty because it is your duty, not anything else. Thus, nothing
can be gained out of an action. And only this motivation that gives moral worth to do an action; and
only that shows you are a good moral person because when a person does his act based on doing just
his duty, that action would pass the categorical imperative test (doing act is based on doing the duty
(period) actually, not because passing the categorical imperative test for itself) (Kant, the Good
Will). Also, it shows you are a good person if you have a good will and vice versa. Only the good
will virtue is the virtue that had been accepted by Kant and not anything else. Because you might be
courageous or intelligent but that does not mean you would be good moral man because you might
be criminal or thief unless if you enhance your courage or intelligence with a good will. Even
happiness, must have good will. For a broad example about good will, you do not cheat in exam
because you do not cheat not because the professor is present at the room, or you don not steal from
the grocery store because you do

Kant Duty
It begins with a presented value of intrinsic goods, through analysing the relationship between the
good will and duty. He claims there is nothing that can be held be held to be good, without its
limitations except good will itself. For example, an act of courage, can be an act of arrogance or
carelessness unless the good will is there to correct their influence on the mind. Thereby it corrects
the entire principle of action. Furthermore, the good will will is only good through its willing,
therefore it does not need an end or purpose. It is higher than any will that is brought about by
inclination and eventually the good will presents itself like a shining jewel. The aim of course is
enjoying life and happiness, but reason is not best ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Universal Law
If duty really is a concept that contains legislation for our actions, then it has to be equal amongst all
rational beings, If something is equal, it is universal.
Kant argues the will must be commanded by the principle; ''one must be able to will that a maxim of
our action should become a universal law.'' This principle is only accomplishable through the
practice of reason free from any incentive or influence, something the hypothetical imperative
cannot do. In practice, this means if genocide was a universal law, the human race would soon
become extinct, thus it is not a practical principle. Whereas acting in accordance to prolonging and
sustaining human lives is a universal law everybody should desire. Therefore, the good will is
guided by rationale.
ii. Humanity
To expand on the first formulae, the good will is made objective by humanity. Like the categorical
imperative, rational beings exist as an end in itself, they are directed toward themselves as well as
other rational beings. Therefore rational beings should not treat themselves or others as a means.
This is consistent with the examples mentioned by Kant such as the suicidal man treating himself as
a means in order to escape from his condition, or the dishonest man abusing the trust of others
through his false promises, abusing others as a means for their own financial

Kant Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Beth Hall

More from Beth Hall (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Kant Essay