Explain Kants Theory of Ethics Essay

Kant was born in 1724-1804, he was a Ger human beings thinker from East Prussia (now Russia), and he spent his entire life in his hometown. Kant wanted to create a logical, complete theory that wasnt retri moreoverive base on assumptions, he countd in an purpose near or wrong that is dogged on intellectual and that we shouldnt do the right affair sightly because its right and non to fulfil our desires. put for contendd we lead a life sp be-time flirtivity his ideals argon there non close to plazas where a perfect tense clean finale shadowernot be made, are all our choices fuelled by someoneal gain and desire?He has a deontological and absolute approach to ethics, to Kant what strings an exertion well-grounded is when you do your tariff and that cardinals duty is to always light the virtuous rightfulness. We should not act tabu of love or compassion. The motive is what makes an activeness intelligent nothing else The consequences to Kant are insignifi jakest its the act itself that quests to be right an good example of his thinking would be its im moralistic to start 1 man in order to save 10. For Kant the event that we ought to do fewthing implies that it is possible to do it. thence moral statements are prescriptive they consecrate an action. Ought implies evict, if I ought to do X, it gist I tolerate do X. Kant also believed that moral statements are a priori (knowable prior to experience) and synthetic, that they potty be confirm by our empirical evidence so are either true or false. Kant put forward the idea of deuce imperatives the hypothetical imperative, these are not moral commands and they dont sustain to every iodine. In Kants eyes you only need to copy them if you want to achieve a certain goal.An example of this would be that Kant ascertained that the pronounce ought is often used no(prenominal) morally, for example if you want to sour a better artist or guitarist, you ought to do. On the other han d Kant also proposed the Categorical Imperative, these are moral commands that can be universalised and do not cipher on anything else. Whereas the hypothetical imperative requires you to go from a to b then savourless imperative only requires you to just do a. Duties for duties sake this related to the unconditional imperative.Kant then goes on to the 3 axioms, front about off to test a moral maxim as its a universal law either everyone should look bulge out it or everyone should reject it. The beginning maxim is Your action should be able to be universalised before you act in a certain way, would you like everyone in the equivalent situation to act in the very(prenominal) way. If not, then you are involved in a contradiction it goes against earth, so at that principle of action might safely be made of law for the whole world if you were to take assembly finished the first maxim its clear it would analyze as that would mean everyone would be lying to one another and t rust is tout ensemble destroyed.The plump for maxim is Dont treat wad as a means to an end Kant strongly believed that you can never use human beings as a means to an end, to exploit or enslave them. Humans to Kant are all the highest point of creation and so guide a unique treatment. This guarantees that all individual(a)s are afforded the moral principles therefore no populace can be used for the sake of others, he also explained that we redeem a duty to develop our own perfection, underdeveloped our moral, intellectual and physical capabilities.We also have a duty to seek the triumph of others as long as that is deep down the law and allows the liberty of others. Always jazz that human individually are ends and do not use them as a means to your end therefore you cant lie for example to only your own involve at the monetary value of using someone. Kants final and ternion maxim work towards a region of ends this is an overall culmination of the first two, everyone should act as if every soul was a end and that moral choices be establish on any empirical good give about human nature, human halcyon or human destiny.However it needs to be clear that despite this familiarity this does not mean that everyone can just decide their own morality but rather that each individual has the capacity to understand the principles of pure practical reason and follow them. It is impartial and moldiness apply to everyone. If one maxim is disproved then the law becomes immoral and cant be universalised. Kant also talked about good will and duty, to Kant the greatest good or taunt bonum is what Kant terms as good will. individual of good will is not good because of what they achieve (the consequence) but because he/she acts out of duty.Good will to Kant is the only thing that is truly pure, as we can dispirit our reasoning wrong or it can be manipulated, but to have the good will to perform your duty cannot be manipulated or got wrong. Kant contrasted doing your duty with giving into your emotions or doing what you feel like. The main two conveys of duty come into conflict as the first thought meaning of duty is to obey your superior, this is what the Nazi soldiers claimed innocence about when they were trialled for war crimes they were just following orders but is that moral?To obey the moral law do the right thing and think a situation through is Kants meaning of duty Good will shines frontward like a precious gemstone Kant. Kants theory of ethics seems to fall in freedom to do anything that can be universalised. This sets the limits but does not give charge therefore in order for it to make sense Kant proposed the three postulates, the endureence of god, freedom and immorality. We know that morality can exist because we can observe it. However we essential be free to perform it as otherwise the act wouldnt be truly moral. Morality and freedom must come from somewhere to Kant this is God. Kant argues that there must be a God and an time to come as there has to be some sort of reward.As we cannot be perfect in this life. This is known as reaching the summon bonum that I mentioned earlier, as this cannot be achieved in this life, there must be an afterlife where this can be achieved. For Kant, morality leads to God. Part B Assess the deliberate that it is always right to have got ones bargains. In Kants watch over immorality occurs when the flat imperative is not followed when a soul attempts to set a different standard for themselves then for the appease of humanity. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, once Kant has derived his categorical imperative he applies it to a moment of examples.The second example and probably the nearly analysed is that of an unfaithful send for. Kant applies his imperative to a person who is short of money who intends to ask for a loan, promising to repay it, but with no intention of doing so. When Kant applies the categorical imperative to this s ituation he discovers that it leads to a contradiction, for if breaking promises were to become universal then no person would ever agree to a promise and promises would disappear. Kant connects rationality with morality, and sees contradictory behaviour as immoral.Some critics have argued that Kant never asserts the data link between rationality and morality, but most dismiss this and point out that Kant clear explains how morality must be ground upon reason and not upon desires. Another impuissance is that what if your friend told you a mystifying that he was planning to murder someone, it would be your engagement to keep it but is that morally right? Could that surpass the 3 maxims, in the second maxim there can be no use of one individual for the sake of another, are you forsaking the person that is aforethought(ip) to be murdered just to keep a promise.However on the other hand there are strengths to Kants way of thinking as it means everyone single human has infixed val ue, actions are based on reason and logic and there are 3 straightforward maxims that need to be followed so it cuts out many grey areas as if it simply doesnt follow the maxims it cant be universalised. Other theories, utilitarianism for example would say it would be wrong to keep a promise of a secret of planned bomb attack that would kill hundreds as you would be saving hundreds of lives by informing the police.Utilitarians believe that the outcome outweighs the action. In my opinion I agree with Kant theory as I believe there needs to be trust between people, as relationships with people would mean nothing also its a matter of honour if you gave your word to someone I will promise you this etc. then it has to be in the best of your ability to fulfil it if its a good cause and not unjust. However in extreme cases such(prenominal) as say the promise of charge a secret of a planned terrorist attack I would have to placement with the utilitarian approach.