Kant and Deontological Theory Essay

Kant being the deontologist he is, has an ethical view based on duty; that human act by a moral system from our duties and obligations. Kant claims that the only thing that intrinsically valuable is good will. Morality has to focus on the idea of having a good will; it’s the unconditional good.

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

Kant explains that a plausible motivation could be either desire or fear of consequences, and these would be hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are when rational beings use means in order to achieve an end. Categorical imperatives, however, are ends in of itself. He says that actions are only good if they are carried out "just because," which would be a categorical imperative. However, he argues that actions are usually not assumed for the sake of duty alone but because of some self-interest, which forces them to act out that action where they wouldn't have otherwise. This is evident when Kant states that "in fact,

Kant claims that our actions are not completely moral if they are done only out of a sense of duty or obligation. Rational beings possess a will in that we can act in accordance to our own principles. We can choose to either align our will with the moral law and reason or with our personal needs, interests, and desires. Reason imposes certain demands, which Kant deems imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives desire an action for a certain result, not as an end in itself. Categorical imperatives command an action in and of itself that is not based on our needs and desires: “but what sort of law can that be the thought of which must determine the will without reference to any expected effect, so that the will can be called

Kant’s categorical imperative is a natural conclusion of reason when searching for a moral guideline that does not depend on previous expense but reason alone. The categorical imperative can be explained in many different ways. Kant offers five formulations in his work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. The formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative can be considered a test. If your maxim passes the test then your actions under that maxim will be good. The formulations that Kant offers, they are not different rules in themselves, but different ways of stating the same thing. It is important to note that these formulations apply only to your maxim, or what you intend to do. The categorical imperative is based off of the assumption

The exercise of our free will and use of rationality is individual to us, and such can not be commanded universally. Hypothetical imperatives is to do an action because it is a means to a desired end: it has inclination and justification that is outside acting of duty. Hypothetical imperatives are based on the a posteriori empirical realm. For example, Michael Vick got in trouble for dog fighting and now he is going around and speaking against it to restore his family name. So the imperative would be stated like this, Due to the fact that Michael Vick got caught dog fighting he is now going around and preaching to restore his family name. This shows that its not the categorical imperative and that he has an ulterior motive. Now if he was doing it because it was good in itself than Kant would agree that his action could be justified for all the good of all rational beings. Another hypothetical imperative would be the Denver University presidential debate. The city spent 500,000 thousand dollars on extra employees and security for the debate. As one put it there is a ying and a yang to the debate. They spent the money so that they could get public recognition and extra tax dollars. So the hypothetical imperative would go, Increasing the money we spent on the debate will therefore increase our revenue and public recognition. Kant believes that the categorical imperative should become the only principle in judging if an action is good

During the 18th century and beyond, there was a lot of discussion over many topics in the world and one of those topics so happened to be about morality. Morality is the distinction of knowing what is right and wrong and good or bad behavior. This subject matter can be a plain black and white outline or there can be a gray area. This is discussed by two philosophers; Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both have different ideas about morality, but with these differences, there are similarities hidden within their thoughts and opinions.

     Kant describes the categorical imperative as “expressed by an ought and thereby indicate the relation of an objective law of reason to a will that is not necessarily determined by this law because of its subjective constitution.” In other words, a categorical impetrative is a command of morality that applies everywhere at all times no matter what, without exception. Kant describes two forms of imperatives, hypothetical and categorical.

Kant identified two types of hypothetical imperatives, ‘technical’ and ‘assertoric’. Technical imperatives are desires that may or may not be shared by others, the desire varies between individuals. Moreover, assertoric imperatives are desires that are shared by the majority of people. Consequently, assertoric imperatives are often assumed although they are not as common as often believed. Contrastingly, categorical imperatives are not founded on desires. Categorical imperatives apply in whatever situation, and is more based on moral principles, such as being truthful regardless of ones own desires. Therefore, Kant stated that categorical imperatives are established by reasoned duties, hence why he referred to it as pure practical

Kant has made a difference in metaphysics and epistemology yet his contributions to ethics have been even more substantial. In Kant’s view, the feature that gives an action moral worth is not the outcome that is achieved by the action, but the motive that is behind the action. This is very interesting because a lot of times, we only worry about the outcome of the action instead of our intention behind it. The motive that can award an act with moral value, he argues, is one that arises from universal principles discovered by reason.  Kant says “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant's next concern is with the faculty of judgment, "If understanding

Kant would argue that you should never treat people merely as instruments; never just as means to your goals. As a deontological perspective, we recoil from torturing the child because it treats a person only as a means to an end. Kant’s deontological approach consists of two universal rules by which moral questions can be addressed. The first one states: ‘Act as though the maxim of your action were by your will to become a universal law of nature.’ His second rule states that: ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.’ The act of torture under the first rule cannot be justified as we would not accept it being universalised and can potentially be used against ourselves.

[2] Therefore, he argues a categorical imperative is necessary to both develop and lead us to will to do moral rules. A categorical imperative is an unconditional requirement for a person to perform a given action simply because it is their moral duty and regardless of the action's consequences. [1] Kant developed three ways of expressing the categorical imperative. He claimed that all of these were equivalent in that they lead to the same moral law. One way to view this is that acting on one of them would them would lead a person to follow the others as well. [2] Each of them allows us a way to determine absolute moral laws from a different

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

The existence of God is something that most people take for granted. In your upbringing you are taught that God is the most supreme being, the creator of all, infinite and eternal. Taking into account the type of society in which we live in and the fact that it is usually our parents who teach us about God, most people do not even question his existence. Many philosophers who believe in God have tried to prove his existence using many different types of argument. One of these arguments is the ontological argument. It was made famous by the 11th century philosopher Anselm. The ontological argument has three properties: 1. It is an a priori argument. 2. It treats existence as a property. 3. It is

Immanuel Kant, in his theory “Deontological moral theory”, argues that morality is based on common sense. According to him, the judgements we came up with should be those that are normal, sane and acceptable. His theory is deontological normative and denies doing right or wrong is a based on either goodness or badness, which is contrary to the teleological moral viewpoints. In the later, the positive outcome of an action determines whether the act was right or