What Kant meant was before choosing a course of action, you have to determine the general rule that stands behind that action. If this general rule could be applied to all people in all circumstances without contradiction, you are choosing the moral path. An example Kant proposed was not to tell a lie. He argued that if lying was a universal law then no one could ever trust anything anyone said. The possibility of truth telling would no longer exist, rendering the very act of lying meaningless.
In other words, you cannot universalise lying as a general rule of action without falling into contradiction. Therefore, lying is a self-contradictory act that contravenes the absolute standards of rational morality. By determining his logical justifications, Kant came up with principles he believed would form a moral life, without relying on scripture or culture.
This sounds fair, but it can lead to situations where a rational moral decision contradicts moral common sense. Later on, people confronted him and gave him a scene for why it would be a good reason to lie. After he listened to the people, he said that no one can never know the full outcome of …show more content… They believed that if one moral rule sometimes can go against other moral rule.
For an example, if someone can either lie to a murder and help someone live or not lie and let the murderers kill the person. So as you can see, you cannot follow both moral rules. You would either have to lie or allow someone to. Show More. Read More. David Hume's Argument For The Moral Permissibility Of Suicide Words 4 Pages This essay shows that Hume believes that suicide can be defined as the killing of self that is intended to remove misery and which may or may not be morally justified.
Response To Oedipus Rex Words 3 Pages He was not destructed by what he did but, his efforts to find the truth behind all of that. Insurgent Series Character Analysis Words 5 Pages The message of the book was to convey the audience to always tell the truth. Conclusion On Disobedience Words 5 Pages Conclusion : It is difficult for an individual to disobey an authority figure or not comply with the morality of the group or society because they are afraid of the consequences they will face from the authority or the power that is above them.
Ayn Rand's Analysis Words 1 Pages Ayn Rand said "The policy of always pronouncing moral judgment does not mean that one must regard oneself as a missionary charged with the responsibility of "saving everyone 's soul".
The Mytilenian Debate Words 5 Pages However, Diodotus understand that the Mytilenians should not be left unchecked, he agrees with Cleon in concern of the future but not the death sentence of the Mytilenians. Open Document. It is a moral law, and you are bound to it no matter what else happens.
There is no room to manipulate the laws depending on a situation. According to Constant, we should not make this a universal, as no society could function on pure truth.
He also believes that no one has the right to the truth if it hurts others. Telling Samantha the truth would cause harm to Beth and many others, including…. After all, it is just laws that describe what is right and fundamentally moral. Rights established by authorities higher than the average person.
Let's go back to the question of telling the truth. The law orders "do not lie" and it is a good ban, because if all people did not lie, then human life would be free from the consequences of lying. Kant believes it should be a requirement for us to obey the moral law because it is a noble thing to do. Kant does not believe in lying or doing evil, but he does believe in good will. Kant deals with deontological ethics which is based on ethics out of a sense of duty or obligation.
When it comes to good will we are to recognize what our duty is in life, we are to complete that duty, and we must be willing to do what is right no matter the situation. Therefore, no matter what they are doing, it is for the right reasons and to not get something out of it.
Immanuel Kant believes that good will, what he sees to be the ultimate intrinsic good, along with following the categorical imperative determine whether …show more content… Kant argues that the right action is one that follows the categorical imperative, in this case, abiding by the moral rule not to kill anyone.
Kant believes that no matter the circumstance, if humans violate the categorical imperative, and there are bad consequences, they are responsible for these consequences. If humans act under the categorical imperative and there are still bad consequences, they are not responsible because they abide by their duty- to follow the exceptionless moral rule. The only way to violate the moral rule is if the individual breaking the rule creates a new maxim, in which, for instance, it is always permissible to kill under self-defense.
The issue with this new absolute rule is that by saying humans can kill in self-defense are the intentions of the humans good-willed or are their intentions faulty?
Also, is killing under self-defense really going to bring about a new universal maxim in which everyone can kill under self-defense, no matter the circumstance? It would be impossible to create this self-defense universal maim because creating this new maxim would just bring about new exceptions within that rule. In Utilitarianism , John Stuart Mill. Get Access. Read More. Moral Particularism : A Deeper Level And Oppositions Essay Words 7 Pages Moral Particularism is the philosophical theory that there are no moral principles that determine what one should or should not do.
Hacking As A Common Act And Scandal Essay Words 6 Pages hacking behaviour cannot be simply and solely used as an indicator to conclude this behaviour as morally right.
0コメント