Kant Vs Schopenhauer

For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important. Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and

Kant's theory is an example of a deontological moral theory. According to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical Imperative (CSUS, 2012). A great example of Categorical Imperative would be “Don’t lie” even though you might be lying to benefit the other person it doesn’t matter you shouldn’t lie because it’s the wrong thing to do. Kant believed that in order to act in a morally correct manner everyone should act from duty. He also believed that it wasn’t the consequences of a person’s actions, but their motivations that were important, such as lying to achieve a greater

Kant’s theory states that for an action to be considered good, it must be considered permissible for the action to apply on another party without contradiction applying (Herman, 5). It additionally states that humans should not be considered as a means to an end but should be considered as an end themselves. It goes further to distinguish between perfect duties and those not perfect (Reath, 23). A perfect duty, for example, is to always tell the truth at all times without ever telling a lie. This means that even when the lie told is for a better purpose then it should not be told. The theory advocates for honesty at all times no matter what the outcome/result will be. An imperfect duty according to him is the duty to donate to charity he goes ahead and explains that such duties can be flexible at any given time and place.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

As it is a stated fact, Kant’s claim is that good will is the only intrinsic good. Now, what exactly does Kant mean by this claim that he makes? I think that it is important to mention what good will is. So, good will has two parts, “one is the ability to determine what your duty is and two is have a steady commitment to do your duty for its own sake.” Intrinsic goods are “those things that whose value consists in the fact that they help to bring about other good things.” So what exactly does Kant mean when he says that good will is the only intrinsic good? Basically it boils down to this, you have to have the right intentions when doing something and obey the moral law and in those things are where you find what is intrinsically good.

If we were to lie, we can never guarentee that our actions will bring a good result, but in fact could bring about a worser result. Kant believed lying was commiting an unnessasary evil. That acts are only right when they are performed with our moral duty to not lie. Lying is morally wrong, it impedes on my ability to make free rational choices, and also lying robs others of their freedom to make their own rational choices. Lying leads others

Knowledge of right and wrong cannot be acquired solely through the examined life; one will gain these values through the social framework and a philosophical aptitude as well. One cannot simply determine what

The problem for Kant is that we must always tell the truth no matter what situation we are in, even if we are in a situation where we can save an innocent person from a serial criminal. In his moral, we should not lie even if we are in an extreme situation where we can get ourselves kill but he add that we can lie in where we seem to tell the truth. In an example of the murderer at the door, we have this option where we can say nothing or tell him they are free to search only if we hide the victim well where murdered can’t find his victim or we can say the truth in a tricky way where he won’t be able to find his victim.

Kant: It’s not only what you do that matters, but your motivation behind it as well. / Duty to do something depends not on the other’s rights, but on the rational assessment of what is the right thing to do based on the various types of relationships that you have with that person. / The only thing that is intrinsically good is the good will, rationality to do what is right for the right reason. / Good will is the only thing fully under our control. / Good will is being motivated to do what is good for the right reasons. The right reasons are ones that are rational. / Motivation should come from moral law or duty.

In other words, what's the general rule that stands behind the particular action that’s being considered? Kant refers to this principle of universality as categorical imperatives. If it is necessary for you to lie to prevent an innocent person from being killed, you must ask what the maxim of the action is. The maxim, in this case, is lying. If you approve the maxim of lying even to save a life then you are universalizing that action, basically saying that everyone should always lie if it is in someone’s best interest. If you should be able to do it, then everyone should be able to do it. This leads to a contradiction and Kant explicitly states that moral actions cannot bring about

Nice post!! I also agree with Kant's view. It is difficult to separate our own benefit from the "good will". I think that there may be a few people that only act motivate exclusive by the "good will" like the saints or extremely moral good people, and leave their own benefit behind. I think that most humans will try to look for their own benefit before doing the action; they may have the good intention behind their actions but they probably will choose the one that brings the most benefits for them. I don't think Kant is wrong; however, I think that we have a though time trying to choose an action that is moral good without looking to our own benefit.

One can do what they think is the “right thing” to do because of the way they were raised. For example, Julie’s mother is a criminal and all she thought her was to do things her way. Julie was raised in that bad lifestyle according to others but for her, her mother is the best and there is nothing wrong with the way she was raise. In her mind, telling the truth is lying and lying is the truth. She must tell the policeman what happened in order for him to let go her friends so she “tell the truth” and her friend is free. In her mind she did not do anything wrong, it was a good intention, and a good consequence also. So, Kant’s theory is not complete because people are not raised the same way therefore think differently and have different perceptions of things. The mind is also complex so one can make itself believe that whatever they did was the right thing even though it was not.

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant explains that there are many goods including happiness, food and desires, but there is only one highest good. This highest good is a good without qualification. The implication being that this highest good is inherently good in itself. Kant further explains that there is only one highest good or one good without qualification which is good will. Good without qualification is a bit vague so Kant has several criteria involved in determining what it is and why good will satisfies them.

is that there is no Right path, just a chosen path and the other path