kants theory...

student786

Kant is a deontologist; central to his belief is the theory that morality is independent of desires and inclination. He believes that morality should be expressed as a categorical imperative regardless of what one desires thus dismissing the antecedent statements e.g. if you want to be good at philosophy then revise hard. This is because to Kant moral demands are demands of duty, to act morally right one should act accordance with duty and to act morally wrong one is not. This idea has derived from the grounds that we as humans have free will on the basis that we are able to rationally reflect on our desires unlike animals therefore can be morally responsible, we can choose not to act on our desire which is an element that makes us free (ability to autonomy). Consequently morality should be based upon practical reasoning only therefore being a priori by nature, necessary and universal as truths of mathematics. No moral duties or obligation can be formed from any empirical sources e.g. desires or happiness as this will not logically work.

Furthermore keeping categorical imperative in mind we should always act on the maxims (rules/principles) that can be logically universalised hence no exceptions can be made, one should act accordance to rules that will apply to everyone. For instance don’t steal, one could only steal if the good is not his and of someone else’s property and wouldn’t want others to steal, a state where everyone’s steal will not work, inevitably no one should steal therefore I shouldn’t.

:s-smilie:

i have a feeling this is wrong lol...please help to correct/add to this will be greatly appreciated :biggrin:

as uve lot probably discovered my illustrations suck hehee

THANKS!!
X

Hello again! :P:

I'll make an attempt at some comments - although I'm no expert; especially as I strongly dislike Kant's ethics. ^_^

Firstly, it looks like a pretty good introduction to a Kant essay - you seem to have all the ideas present (which is good). :smile:

The only exception is Kant's "treat people as a end in themselves rule". That's quite important because it eliminates a number of criticism which could otherwise be made.

Secondly, you seem to have placed your emphasis in the wrong place. If you're focussing on Kant, then his central ideas are: universalisability, Maxims, means and ends (I think). I like the way you've developed from basic deontology to Kant's theory, but you should probably being going into more detail on the Kant-Specifics, rather than deontology in general.

Finally, your writing style could probably be a little bit clearer. I'm not very good at reading complicated things, so it may just be me, but the piece could be more structured - particularly the last sentence. There's a fair amount of marks for communication in the exam.

Overall - pretty good essay me thinks. You're on the right track, so keep at it. ^_^

(p.s. Just my opinions - I'm not much of a critic)
(p.s.s. The last sentence of first paragraph: Kant says emotions as a basis for morality is illogical because emotions are subjective, I think)
(p.s.s.s. Good luck in the exam!)

Reply 2

you need to talk about good will, explain maxims, the two formulations of the categorical imperative and also give examples. i think kant says that the right thing to do is one that accords with out duty and our duty is to follow the moral law which is the categorical imperative. <<<think thats the corect definition not completely sure :biggrin:

one thing is that you shouldnt assume that your reader knows what your talking about so you need to be much clearer in what you write. so define explain and then give examples. my teacher says write as if you are explaining to someone with the mental capacity of a 9year old or something. if you get what i mean :biggrin:

good luck im doing the same exam as well (ply2)

Reply 3

username118122

I think you should probably state something like 'The first part of Kant’s categorical imperative states that you should never act on a maxim unless it can be imposed as a universal law' just so it's obvious to the examiner you know what you're talking about. And what about showing how it is not possible for some maxims to be made universal, eg. 'always kill', if everyone always killed, then we would all die, which is a pretty bad thing really, so the maxim is practically not realisable.

Also, you need to talk about the second part of the CI, ie. That you should never treat other people solely as mean, but as ends in themselves.

Good luck, and be happy you won't get virtue ethics as your assess question, like i did last year...arrrgh

Reply 4

oh this has been very helpful and encouraging thanku!!!......hmmm mini moi in short what are the 2 categorical imperative and hmm good will :s-smilie:

??... kant is so difficult urugh!!!!!
hmm yeah i realised that i missed out the statement that we shudnt use humans as means but end in itself because of the power of rationality which shudnt get wasted :s-smilie:

.... the thing is he talks on about alot diff areas so to make it all flow n connecting is difficult....

but thanku all!!! mwahx
good luck u lot too :biggrin:

p.s: i might modify it when it the time n include suggestions made :biggrin:

Reply 5

pollymitchell

Thanks!!!
lol i actually did that paper last yr but failed miserably so realli got to increase marks this time round...i think the assess ques is gunna be on kant lol...as kant hasnt be mention in the last 2 yrs so will have to crop up!!...tho utilitarian asses ques be great x

Reply 6

I agree - definitely looks like it's going to be a Kant year. :P

Of course - I really dislike his theory so I'll have plenty to rant about! YAY! I'm more of a virtue ethicist myself...

Reply 7

the two formulations of the categorical imperative are

(i) Universal law- "i ought never to act except in such a way that i can will my maxim to be a universal law"

(ii) End-In-Itself- humans should not be used as a means to an end but only as an end. kant says that only reason has intrinsic worth and humans are rational animals and therefore have intrinsic worth and therefore cannot be treated as mere objects. he also said that nothing can have value unless it has been valued by a human, but even that value is nothing compared to the value of humans. here you can insert the criticism about kant implying that animals have no value which is unintuitive. if you want to reach the conclusion that Kant is good then say that this view might just be related to his prejudice due to his times and religious views.

also kant says that these formulations are linked but i dont know about you but i cant see how they are, so this could be a good criticism

good will- according to kant the best action is one done out of good will. good will is good in itself. an act is done out of good will if it accords with our duty and is done in reverence of the moral law which is the categorical imperative.

kant also says that even if an action has bad consequences, as long as it is done out of good will then it is still ok.

hope ive helped :biggrin:

if you have any questions please do ask me, i like explaining stuff its good revsion :biggrin:

Reply 8

hey thanks a lot :biggrin:

...what does kant mean by good will :s....hmm is true that kant dismisses emotions as to him its all about acting for sake of moral law....so he wud say that you should jus act with the appropriate emotions :s-smilie:

...opposite of virture theory :s-smilie:

thx
x

Reply 9

also....hmm one of the criticism is that some maxims which are consided immoral but can be universalised...could someone please suggest detailed illustrations taht wud be great :biggrin:

..is lying one :s-smilie:

cud be universalised.

Reply 10

student786

hey thanks a lot :biggrin:

...opposite of virture theory :s-smilie:

thx
x

also....hmm one of the criticism is that some maxims which are consided immoral but can be universalised...could someone please suggest detailed illustrations taht wud be great ..is lying one cud be universalised.

I've never come across goodwill before, but I'm fairly certain he does dismiss emotions. For him, somebody who acts on their emotions (e.g. feels sorry for someone) is not a being moral. A moral person is somebody who acts purely out of duty [insert criticism about acting purely out of duty/ inhumanity / impossibility]. I think for him, emotions are totally irrelevant.

To the second question, there are certain criticisms which have that effect. The two I'm familiar with are when (a) the formulation of the rule breaks down, or (b) the logicality of the rule breaks down.

In the case of (a) you might formulate a rule such as "all people born on the 2nd February, with brown hair, who do martial arts and like to talk on student forums [i.e. me] should be able to murder who they want". Now of course this rule is perfectly universaliseable, but is it moral? :P

Of course, Kant does respond to the above criticism with his 'means and ends' rule.

In the case of (b), the axe wielding murder example is often cited. In this example, you see an axe wielding murderer coming round the corner and you know he is after your friend hiding over in a doorway or something. He asks you where your friend is. Now according to Kant, you should never be able to lie - but obviously in this situation it would be totally absurd not to do so.

For me, this is proof in itself that Kant's theory hasn't hit home on morality...

Reply 11

student786

also....hmm one of the criticism is that some maxims which are consided immoral but can be universalised...could someone please suggest detailed illustrations taht wud be great :biggrin:

..is lying one :s-smilie:

cud be universalised.

kant was specificaly after making sure that things like lieing and killing could not be universalised.

lieing cannot be a universal law because if everyone lied. then there would be not trust and trust is necesary for us to be able to lie. therefore lieing cannot be a universal law.

im surprised you havent heard about kant and good will, but its understandable because i havent come across this stuff about emotions :biggrin:

ok let me explain the stuff about good will. kant says good will is the best thing in the world.

i just google good will with reference to kant and these are quotes that i found

"A rational being who consistently has the right motive has what Kant calls a Good Will. Nothing is more important for morality than having a good will. According to Kant, a rational being with a Good Will automatically does its duty."

A "Good Will" is the only thing that is "good without qualification." Other "goods," such as intelligence and health, can be qualified. The Good Will is good by virtue of the fact that it is "the will to follow the Moral Law." <<<< i like this one more. without qualifications means that it is good in itself and that it is always good not good because someone says so.

Reply 12

NickkO

Personally I just love Kant. I admire the way he seems to bring hundreds of years to a (seemingly) perfectly logical conclusion. Not just his ethics, but also his transcendentalism.

I am wondering though (even though this is completely off-topic), how do you pronounce Kant in English? Is it (phonetically) like Kent? Or more like the German, deep A that makes the entire name sound like a particularly bad word in English? In Dutch it is the latter, but no-one knows anything about English profanity in the Neths so it's ok.

I just had an exam about Kant in my Social Philosophy class, and what my professor seemed to focuss on wasn't his CI but the way Kant derives everything 'good' from reason instead of nature (not sure I'm using the right terminology here, just literally translating Dutch terminology). The actual question about Kant in my exam was: "What does Kant mean with reasonable freedom?". I can't remember what I answered though, because everything just blurs after I finish a test.

I thought that Kant is a deontologist because he isn't a man of consequences but of what is literally translated as duties. Wrong terminology, I'm sure. I mean that he says you should act on principles (deontologism) instead of the consequences (teleologism). He's not a deontologist because he believes one should act on reason instead of nature. He does, but that doesn't make him a deontologist.

Reply 13

chriztina27

could someone please explain how kants ethics would relate to genetic engineering? like why would it be able to be universified? how does it go against ones will?

Reply 14

NickkO

yeah you are quite right, i also like Kant's theory because he bases it on reason and makes logical sense. i dont know about everyone but in my college we pronounce it the german way, you know the one that sounds like ****** lol. yeh he is a deontologist because he believes that the right thing to do is one that accords with our duty.

Reply 15

chriztina27

could someone please explain how kants ethics would relate to genetic engineering? like why would it be able to be universified? how does it go against ones will?

hey im sorry i dont know anything about this. but you could try doing some research on google about it. i didnt know that genetic engineering is universalisable :O that could be a good criticism actually hmmm... thanks lol

Reply 16

can someone help and and please tell me what kant would say about animal rights, abortion and euthanasia and why. thanks :biggrin:

Reply 17

The trouble I find with Kant's views on these is it all depends on how you formulate the rule.

If I remember correctly though, I think Kant didn't really see animals as moral agents as they weren't rational and he was against suicide, so I would assume he would be against euthanasia (bit of a tenuous link there).

However, if you're applying Kant's theory to the issues yourself, it becomes a bit trickier. Obviously 'Treat animals how you like' is perfectly universaliseable. Doesn't necessarily mean it's moral though...

However, Euthanasia is a bit tricker. You could see it as 'kill yourself when you want to' or you could see it as 'kill yourself when you're terminally ill and in pain' (although Kant might argue the former degenerates into the latter). It seems the second is universaliseable while the first isn't to me. Personally, I think this shows the problems with rule formulation. :P

Again, for Abortion it's tricky. 'Take a life if you want to' is obviously not universaliseable. But if you don't see it as life, then 'abort your fetus if you want to'. Hm... looks like there's problems with it being a priori too. ^_^

Sorry, I guess that turned into criticisms and didn't really answer the question. Oh well...

Reply 18