Kantian Ethics Essay

Im humanuel Kants moral theory has become the heart of deontological ethics. It differentiates itself by tinting at morality as an extension of mans creator. Unlike other estimable theories, the individual is get outn as the primary thespian of all moral decisions. His familiarity, his give is seen as the locust of estimable judgment. For Kant in order for an act to be considered virtuously worthy it has to be make come on of transaction. From my understanding of Kant, when we talk of duty it is some affaire which our reason recognizes as a manifestation of a universal law, one which he/she spatenot deny.Doing the right thing is not approximately whether or not the outcome might be gauged to be positive, or that because an individual feels that he/she must perform a particular act rather she knows that it is his/her duty. In order to be ethically praiseworthy, the person must ask himself, Am I the one who is decision do and acting? The morality of Kant builds on the w ant of the philosopher to describe and order an ethical life that is centered on the sagacious faculty of man, his reason.It is the case that in a lot of cases people t closedown to look at the come-at-able consequences of an do in judging whether or not what theyre about to do is moral or not. At times we act out of trustworthy intentions, helping others, sharing, et al. because we feel that its the good thing to do. Unfortunately, Kant wint agree with our airs. In fact, he would even say that much(prenominal) actions have no moral worth. For Kant, the important thing is our obligation to do something, feelings, intentions, and consequences may gain the approval of others but they be too whimsical.thither is for him an a priori (before reason) law which tells us what ought to be done. As rational beings we are dignified with our ability to discern this law, much more, we are capable of fashioning it (Kremling, n. d. ). To act contrary to what our reason dictates, is choosi ng to act in heteronomy, a cosmic no-no for Immanuel Kant because it belittles the individual, the latter(prenominal)(prenominal) produces as a result, acts that are empty. If Kantian honourableity sounds a bit of feel-good emotions, intentions, and happy thoughts, then I think were on the right track.Ethics in terms of Kant is not about making another person smile its not about figure how many people you could help out by doing something. At the end of the day, acting on such things are all half-chances, there is no guarantee that by helping someone out would be good, theres no assurance that if you think of the number of people who would benefit, it means you wont harm others. Autonomy plays a central quality in the moral theory of Kant, in such a way that a man must in his own volition consider to legislate a universal law and act in consonance to it.How does one determine which acts are in accordance with good will per se and is thus uninversalizable? For Kant all action s can be stated as a motto, a person as an autonomous person creates the maxim but at the same time has to make sure that it is a principle that every rational being can agree to with no exceptions. This is the categorical imperative, contrary to the hypothetical imperative which is stated as an If-then. I. e. If I want to pass this class then I have to line of business the Categorical Imperative claims a universal statement that is true at all times (.When a person acts out of duty the latter is presumed to have passed the categorical maxim put forward to state the action In laymans terms we could state the maxim as a question first, i. e. can I will to cheat on an exam, in such a way that others would as a undivided can will to do so? There are categorical imperatives that have been formulated by Kant as the most basic of ethical requirements, like for example, Lying is an act that for him will never become morally justifiable, we must always follow the imperative to never use a person but always as an end (Hillar, 2003).We again see here the theme of dignity and respect, man and his reason is central in the ethical works of Kant. Even if for example in doing an act we would do so for the good of the majority, it would still not be valid if a minority would be sacrificed along the way. We do something because it ought to be done as determined by our reason and verified through the maxim which we sort and attempt to put as a categorical imperative the latter could be thought of as the fixed rules that govern how we as rational agents act.The main criticisms to be raised with regards to other ethical theories are founded on the assumptions of Kant regarding the fulfillment of moral obligation for the sake of good in itself. Utilitarianism takes as a central part of its tenets, the concept of summum bonum (greatest good for the greatest number). If we look at this ethical formulation we shall see that it would contradict with the notion of Kant that human ity Being should always be considered ends never as a means, not even for the greatest number.Problem may also arise in the altruistic claims of utilitarian moralizing. One ought not to pursue something out of comfort or other virtues like Aristotles notion of the good man as the man of mean and virtues. This would not qualify for Kant as abounding grounds to pursue good, because as he had mentioned in the groundings, prior to the good is the good will with which there is no qualification (Johnson, 2004). If one is an individualist, he might more likely be pleased with the ethical prescriptions of Kant.I personally find strength in his moral philosophy in finding support for the need to protect definite inalienable rights. In focusing on a moral law, his theory is not compromising to the attacks of situational morality but rather focuses on the man as a rational being and a moral agent, whose will is in a sense the will of all (Baron, 1995). There is stability and consistency in Kants moral philosophy by centering on the autonomy of all individuals under the precept that when it all boils down to it, man shares a common reason and will that would allow them to determine what is right from wrong.On the other hand I think that there are certain things in life wherein following the rules set through categorical imperatives would not suffice. There are moral dilemmas wherein human lives are hanged in the balance. Although reason can help us in making our decisions, the moral duties of Kant can only go so far. I am left to wonderment how a person could be satisfied with himself in pointing the whereabouts of innocent African-Americans to half-crazed members of the Ku Klux Clan who are vowing to kill them on the basis of fulfilling his moral duty of always telling the truth.Take note, in Kants philosophy, there is no hierarchy of duties, one has to fulfill them all, regardless of the outcome.ReferencesBaron, Marcia, 1995, Kantian Ethics closely Without Apology Cornell Cornell U. P. Hillar, Marian, 2003, Kants Moral Axioms, Retrieved August 3, 2007 from Socinian. org http//www. socinian. org/kant. html Johnson, Robert, 2004, Kants Moral Philosophy, Retrieved August 4, 2007 from Stanford http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/