Preview

Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of Morality Analysis

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
747 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Groundwork For The Metaphysics Of Morality Analysis
Immanuel Kant, disagreed with the Utilitarian principle that maximized happiness for the greatest number of people. In chapter 2 of his book, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant theorizes an external critique that we don’t always act for desires but duty instead. Kant really has this worry and he wants to find a firm foundation for our moral laws. According to Kant, Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Universal moral law is not empirical, not based on experience because then it is not justified and can take on different meanings. Once you strip away everything empirical, contingent, subjective about you will be left with a rational (form of the action itself). When …show more content…
We don’t know what will make us happy. “The reason for this is that all the elements that belong to the concept of happiness are empirical- that is, they must be borrowed from experience” (Kant 174). The fact that an action may lead to happiness cannot be the grounds for moral obligation. Happiness is permissible in duty, however cannot be the reason for out actions. Duty is the necessity of act done out of respect for the law. His claim is all of our emotions react to non-rational passion but respect responds to reason, how we evaluate our projected maxims. Kant notes that “happiness” is too indefinite and too empirical to serve as the reason why we “ought” to do things. It is too indefinite because we all have different meanings of happiness; one person’s happiness can be someone else’s pain. For example for the people of France to ensure they are safe and happy, they banned Muslim women from wearing their burquas. This might please the people of France, however it upsets Muslim women who respect their religion and want to wear their …show more content…
Every rational being would follow the categorical imperative. Moral imperative is categorical because it is our duty to obey the law no matter what. Categorical imperative is independent of experience and done out of duty and respect for the law. While hypothetical imperative is too irrational and too practical to be used to justify moral law. Categorical imperative justifies every statement as being moral. Under no circumstances, should this not be true for categorical imperatives must be conventional to the universal law. Kant provides one example of a categorical imperative that states suicide is absolutely forbidden. God wants us to do our duty and live our life out, instead of taking the easy way out. Our self love is a feeling that is meant to promote life. As rational beings we need to be moving ourselves

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    All the things that we require for happiness are morally good. Things such as our health, our friends and so on. They are good because they make us happy and with happiness come the fulfilment of our natures which is a human’s purpose in life. There are many strengths of Natural Law and they can be applied in nearly…

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    When we speak of “Morality” we think of the difference between right and wrong, the difference between the good and the evil. We use morality to justify our actions and decisions. More often than not, people impose their morality on others and expect them to act in the way they find fit. They believe that the idea of right and wrong is universal. In her essay “On Morality”, Didion contradicts this theory and believes that everyone can have different ideas of morality based on their own perception.…

    • 893 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In Thomas Nagel’s essay titled “The Objective Basis of Morality”, Nagel claims that “[t]he basis of morality is a belief that good and harm to particular people (or animals) is good or bad not just from their point of view, but from a more general point of view, which every thinking person can understand” (Nagel 124). When applying this theory to the immorality of the price of higher education, it can be argued that making college so expensive is immoral because any thinking person can see it is bad. Peter Singer’s segment in the film examined life can also be used as a proof because as he points out, the money that we spend on expensive shoes can go to UNICEF and feed a kid or even more. Now let’s imagine how many kids students could feed…

    • 295 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    What part does happiness play in determining the morality of an act in a situation? Can a concept that ties morality to the search of happiness truly be rational? What of the opposite? Is it possible to view every situation with objectivity, never taking into account an emotion (like happiness)? The questions above concern themselves with the part of the central tenets of the ethical views of two very important philosophers, respectfully: John Mill and Immanuel Kant. The ethical theories that these two philosophers laid out clash with each other in fundamental ways, from how reason was defined, to the role that “happiness” played in determining the ethical choice in a moral dilemma. In the following pages, I will attempt to present and discuss the theories of Kant and Mill, pointing out what I perceive as weakness in said theories, as well as the possible strengths of each system.…

    • 2194 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Good And Evil Casablanca

    • 1184 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He believed that our actions must come from a sense of Duty, not because we care for or love one another but because it is our Duty to “respect the Moral Law” (p. 246). Judging the importance of a decision based on whether or not it was following a rule or set of rules is called deontological ethics. He believed that it was not the consequences of the action which were important but the person’s motive carrying out the said action. Many disagree with Kant saying that we must have a foundation to start from, a reason such as love or concern to do what is morally…

    • 1184 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The foundation of the metaphysics of morals is a critical examination of a pure practical reason.…

    • 1404 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Utilitarianism is divided into two: - the rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. The rule utilitarian considers the consequences of adopting certain rules whereas the act utilitarian disregards the level of the rules and sticks only to the principle of the utility. Thus the advantage of the rule utilitarianism is that it considers the parameters like justice, beneficence and laws and legal rights which lacks in the act utilitarianism. Kantianism mainly rotates around the following objectives. According to Kant “maxim” is the moral worth of an individual’s action that depends exclusively on the moral acceptability if the rule on which the person acts. Since the maxim applies to every individual that performs the similar act in the similar condition it has been declared as an universal law. The second…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The “moral law”, according to Kant, is when one is to act in accordance with the demands of practical reason, or acting done solely out of respect of duty. He says that moral laws will make you will in a certain way and is not subject to something further. Moral laws apply to all rational being in all places at all times. Overall, he believes that morality is on a basis of a priori, or preceding experience.…

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant philosophy has contributed in development of "pure" moral philosophy, a "metaphysics of morals" that is based on the concepts of reason, not on empirical observations. According to his philosophy moral obligations are applicable to all human beings as it applies not only for particular person in particular situation, but also to all rational beings in all circumstances.…

    • 477 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The categorical imperative is a way of testing possible actions. The maxim of universality is as follows : Act so that the totality of maxims from which you act are such that you can regard yourself as enacting through these maxims a unified scheme of public moral perceptions , the enforcing of which by all reasonable and rational persons . According to Kant, the correct way to think about ones actions are to contemplate whether or not one would like that action to happen to you. In other words, one should use the idea of the golden rule. He thinks that humanity should use this type of guideline, so that humans do not give into their natural ways, and see it in less personal terms.…

    • 2197 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Heilbroner Vs Kant

    • 1387 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Seems pretty simple, right? Kant says that happiness is irrelevant to being morally good. So basically, you can be the most depressed person and still be morally good; as long as your intentions are good. Morality is necessary to Kant, and being morally good can make you unhappy. For example, telling the truth can make you morally good, but it can also make you unhappy. Say your friend asks you “does this dress make me look fat?” and you tell them yes, technically it makes you morally good because you told the truth, but you’re unhappy because your friend doesn’t want to be your friend anymore. It seems as if Kant’s view on morality is somewhat a win lose situation. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is how one’s maxims become universal law. An example of a universal law would be murder, I’m 98% positive that it is illegal to kill someone because “you felt like doing it”, on the other hand if say you were in war and you had to sacrifice your life in order to save your comrades, then in Kant’s eyes what you did was morally…

    • 1387 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Happiness does consist in living in accordance with reason. For a man to be happy his soul must function and have activity. If a man is to have happiness he must find the right middle ground. Too much of something or too little of something will not be what he needs. Since happiness is having everything you may want or need it must be within reason because having too much will cause certain evils. Aristotle says “the good of a man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue, and if there are several virtues, in conformation with the best and most complete. In a complete life” Everyone must strive for excellence in what they do but they must still conform to…

    • 1197 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Kant Vs Utilitarianism

    • 318 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Utilitarianism and Kant’s respective have different ways for demonstrating whether an act we do is right or wrong. Corresponding to Kant, we should look at our maxims, intentions, of a particular action. Kantians believe “If we are rational, we will each agree to curb our self-interest and cooperate with one another” (Shafer-Landau, Russ 194). In other words, humans are rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for self-interest. On the other hand, Utilitarian’s believe that we should do actions that produce the greatest amount of happiness. However, this could associate using people as mere means and lead to the sacrifice of lives for the greater good.…

    • 318 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the novel, James Taggart’s first words are “Don’t bother me, don’t bother me, don’t bother me.” Why is this significant? How do his first words relate to his thoughts and actions throughout the novel?…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    For example, let’s say there’s a house on fire with two locked rooms: one room with three people who have criminal records and the other room with my parents that can be saved. According to Utilitarianism, the action that will produce the greatest good is to break down the room with criminals and save them and let the two loved ones suffer. Acting in such a way would create the greatest positive effect on the world but is unreasonable and too hard to uphold. Also Utilitarianism is too impersonal and does not consider rights of individuals in its attempt to look for the greater good. I wouldn’t accept that cheating, stealing, lying may be justified depending on whether they maximize happiness in particular case. I agree with Kant to “always treat humanity, whether in yourself or in other people, as an end in itself and never as a mere means.” I believe this assertion should be essential moral concept that everyone must live by. It is wrong to treat others as a mere means and use others as a tool to profit oneself. It is morally good to treat others as ends in themselves as to not deny them relevant information. People must be allowed the freedom of choice for greater…

    • 1538 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays