'Kant and the Categorical Imperative Essay\r'

'The possibility of the homosexual race of serious and wrong has been a subject of news among philosophers for centuries and m any theories affirm been presented to answer the question of whether pietism exist. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the great German philosopher is unmatched who has contri merelyed profoundly to the public of philosophy and especially in regards to his aspect on the subject of ethics. Kant disagreed with Hume that incorruptity is objective and not subjective. Kant cute to propose a pure moral philosophy, unitary of haughty necessity and strong-minded of all valet feelings, because if it not so, it bequeath not be absolute and binding upon every person. The purpose of morality is to shine our doings and that it is reason that makes humans moral and not feelings or preferences. We shall explore near of the a priori foundations of morality paying special attention to Kant’s ‘ monotonous insistent’ and what ex defendly this was designed to solve in moral theory.\r\nTo have moral worth, an turn of events essential be d star in the name of angiotensin-converting enzyme’s certificate of indebtedness, the moral worth of this pr roundice is taken from the article of belief from which it’s determined, not from what it aims to accomplish and that duty is necessary when one is playperforming out of adore for the faithfulness. A shopkeeper giving the buyer the decline amount of deepen because the law states one moldiness not divert, this is an example of a legal attain because rules be organism followed just for the wrong reasons. A shopkeeper returning the correct amount of change because it belongs to the customer is an example of a moral save because the action is world done for the right reasons. Kant adopts the deal of morality as an ‘unconditional ought’, as contrasted to a ‘conditional ought’ By this he heart that one should per establish an act without considerations of the merits that that act whitethorn produce, in comparison with acting in say for something else to happen. This implies that acts that be moral ar those that are done without being done for the sake of the merit or reward that they may bring to the person.\r\nKant claimed that moral behaviour does not guarantee the attainment of happiness; preferably that redeeming(prenominal) result is crucial for actually be happiness. â€Å"Nothing in the worldâ€indeed cypher even beyond the worldâ€can by chance be conceived which could be called tidy without qualification however a good testament” (Kant 1964 p.27). By the ‘good volition’ Kant meat that a good will is not good because what it performs or what it imports but that it is simply good in itself. The good will is the will which acts out of respect for the moral law and from freedom, but actions more(prenominal) as these, if motivated by selfish or emotional fa ctors, will and thence have no moral worth. There is a great deal of stress placed on the intention behind the act, consider giving property to charity for the sake of dishing out, without any drive for any ego gratification or such self-serving purposes, this is an instance of â€Å"good will”.\r\nKant’s roughly well kn let contribution to estimable discussion is the prostrate exigent. There are troika key propositions that form the basis of Kant’s ethics. They are: act only on that maxim (principle) through which you can at the same time will that it should become a common law, act in a route that you never treat existence as a means to an end and that you act as if you were a lawmaker member of a kingdom of ends. These three principles form the categorical exacting. For Kant the reference of moral justification is the categorical imperative. It presents a rule to determine whether or not an act may be considered to be morally correct. An imper ative is either categorical or hypothetical. Kant writes, â€Å"If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical . . . .” (Kant 1989 p.31)\r\nAs humans we all have subjective impulses †lusts and inclinations that may nullify the dictates of reason. These desires, whether they are material objects or delight us in a sexual or psychological way, may in fact contradict the dictates of reason. Therefore we experience the claim of reason as an imperative, a mastery to act in a particular way. Kant views a person to be most free when they can overcome their temptations and it is this freedom that helps us make sense of morality.\r\nThe categorical imperative emphasises the means for completing an action and places little meaning on the end result of an action, whereas the hypothetical imperative places much emphasis on the end result of an action. It is an imperative because it dictates what we should do, disregarding our desires. As rational beings we are steer through life by laws and principles, in the form of an imperative which simply orders us â€Å"you must do this” regardless of any desires which we may have. Hypothetical imperatives restrain to us if we have a particular desire, â€Å"go to university if you want to become a philosopher”.\r\nAn act becomes imperative when it ought to be applied to everyone, hence the basic contention of the categorical imperative being to act only on maxims that you could will to become universal laws of human nature (Kant).\r\nA categorical imperative would command you to do X inasmuch as X is as such right, that is, right in and of itself, aside from any new(prenominal) considerationsâ€no â€Å"ifs,” no conditions, no strings accustomed . . . a categorical imperative is unco nditional (no â€Å"ifs”) and independent of any things, circumstances, goals, or desires. It is for this reason that only a categorical imperative can be a universal and binding law, that is, a moral law, sensible for all rational beings at all times. (Miller 1984 p.462)\r\n repulsiveness then would be to make exceptions for ourselves by acting only on maxims that we cannot universalize out of our own will. It is those who act in such a way and then expect others to act different to our way, who are immoral.\r\nThe categorical imperative acts as a traffic pattern for universal law; by stating the prerequisites that an act must have to be considered moral, it presents a comparison for mint to be able to await if they are acting morally, this being to act only on principles that you could will to become universal laws by which all who handle to act morally must comply with. It determines whether any act is right or wrong, so to do the opposite would be contradictory and\r \nthis would then be an act that is not morally correct. An example that Kant puts in the lead in â€Å" heavy Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,” (1989) to depict this is of a man who is in extreme despair and contemplating suicide. By taking his own life he would be universalizing the principle that in order to love himself he should end his life (by doing this he is trying to mitigate his life by ending the despair he is feeling). Killing himself would in fact do zilch to improve his life because he would have no life at all! So you see how these contradictory acts undermine those that may be classified ad as morally right.\r\nAlthough Kant’s categorical imperative has been widely read and accepted by some it has had criticism. Some philosophers have thought of it as absolutist, being too ‘black and white.’ But when ciphering of benignity and society in which we reside, looking at morality according to the categorical imperative allows a step rule for everyone to follow. If it was alright for some people to steal and not others this we could not call a moral and fair society. There take aims to be a rule or comparison so that what acts are right and what are wrong may be differentiated from each other and the wrong acts then dealt with accordingly.\r\nSome have asked how only an action which one had no desire to do could ever have any moral worth. This to me does not seem to be what is trying to be expressed in Kantian ethics. It is not the desire per se that makes an act immoral, I think it seems that it is more the fact of this desire being the reason the act is conducted in the first place. If the act is done to fulfil a personal desire or attain that which one desires, then the act is immoral, but if the act is done for the good of the act in itself, for example donating money to an orphanage because one desires to help, then this is still what Kant would regard as a morally right act.\r\nAlthough Kantianism ha s had a profound effect on some people, producing many elaborations, translations and thought, for some it is not feasible once placed together as a whole. Kant had some very profound ideas but looking at society tody I would think he was definitely on the right thought pattern. Society and we as humans, with our impulses whether good or bad, need a clarified ethics to follow to help us separate what may be considered right and wrong in a moral sense, and it must be fair and the same for everyone, this is what Kant’s categorical imperative has done by creating a universal law or ‘rule of thumb’ for morality.\r\nReferences:\r\nKant, I. 1989 â€Å"Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative.” ed. Serafini, A.\r\nEthics and Social Concern, the categorical imperative. bracing York: Paragon House\r\nPublishers\r\nKant, I. 1964 Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Herbert J. Paton, New\r\nYork: HarperCollins.\r\nMiller, Ed. L. 1984 Questions that function: An Invitation to Philosophy, 3rd ed.\r\nColorado: McGraw-Hill, Inc.\r\nhttp://sguthrie.net/kant.htm (accessed on 12/10/04)\r\n'