Thursday, November 14, 2019
Kantian Morality Essay -- essays research papers
Kantian Morality      Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves, in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality.      The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims that can be universalized.      The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself. Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.      Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each ... ...be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance. However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized. And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the idea of an objective, universal morality.      The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of moral theory in the first place.      Kantian Morality Essay -- essays research papers Kantian Morality      Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is perhaps the most noble of any-- acting morally because doing so is morally right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves, in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality.      The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same manner. Thus, Kant says that an action is morally permissible in one instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is one's moral duty to act on these universalizable maxims, and that people should only act on those maxims that can be universalized.      The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-- every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-- but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentialist. Kant truly does not look to the consequences of an action to see whether the action is morally permissible, but rather to the morality of the action itself. Kant assumes that universal morality is inherent in being, thus avoiding complications in trying to determine which actions lead to better consequences. However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.      Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each ... ...be universally applied, acting on those maxims would not be permissible. An example would be allowing anyone with a star shaped birthmark on their back to steal. Universalizing this seems to be possible, at least at first glance. However, universalization implies that a maxim be applicable throughout time. No matter how unlikely, perhaps the future will contain nothing other than birthmarked clones. In that case, the maxim cannot be universalized. And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the idea of an objective, universal morality.      The main issue with these objections seems to be that Kant's theory breaks down to some extent in certain situations. However, it becomes possible that by further analyzing the situation at hand, certain allowances can be made. Perhaps then the most convincing argument for the theory is that on a day-to-day basis. Kantian Ethics provides a method for deciding the best and most moral course of action. Perhaps this is the purpose of moral theory in the first place.     Â
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment