Argument Paper—Argument against Irrationality of Immorality
Introduction:
In this paper, I will first define the Kantian moral theory. Secondly, I will explain the opposition argument in detail; for a better understanding of Kant’s reasoning. Next, I will explain my disagreement against premise three in Kantian’s argument for the irrationality of immorality that states, “If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally” (Shafer-Landau). Finally, I will close with my overall view on the subject matter.
The Kantian Theory: From the beginning of time humans have had the ability to reason and this is what makes us unique. For instance, humans rather than any other mammal on earth, can comprehensively understand, that you must look both ways before you cross the street so that a vehicle does not run you over. The question is; are we reasoning rationally or irrationally? Also, are we acting with fairness and consistency? Furthermore, are we treating everyone as we would want to be treated? The Kantian moral theory is based on an individual’s ability to reason logically coupled with the ability to …show more content…
If this is true then these fanatics are stating a maxim that everyone can accept and according to Kant’s argument they would be acting ethically or out of duty. This premise illuminates that if everyone accepts the maxim whether good or bad than you are performing morally. I have to say that with the examples above; I would have to strike down the Kantian belief, that as long as everyone can accept the maxim—which is the principles of universalizability, then they are acting morally. I would also have to agree that in each case of the extremist’s views above reasoned with rationality by accomplishing their task at hand and being consistent in their thoughts, actions, and reasoning, however, I do not see the morality in any of the examples that are explained directly
Introduction:
In this paper, I will first define the Kantian moral theory. Secondly, I will explain the opposition argument in detail; for a better understanding of Kant’s reasoning. Next, I will explain my disagreement against premise three in Kantian’s argument for the irrationality of immorality that states, “If you obey the principle of universalizability, then you act morally” (Shafer-Landau). Finally, I will close with my overall view on the subject matter.
The Kantian Theory: From the beginning of time humans have had the ability to reason and this is what makes us unique. For instance, humans rather than any other mammal on earth, can comprehensively understand, that you must look both ways before you cross the street so that a vehicle does not run you over. The question is; are we reasoning rationally or irrationally? Also, are we acting with fairness and consistency? Furthermore, are we treating everyone as we would want to be treated? The Kantian moral theory is based on an individual’s ability to reason logically coupled with the ability to …show more content…
If this is true then these fanatics are stating a maxim that everyone can accept and according to Kant’s argument they would be acting ethically or out of duty. This premise illuminates that if everyone accepts the maxim whether good or bad than you are performing morally. I have to say that with the examples above; I would have to strike down the Kantian belief, that as long as everyone can accept the maxim—which is the principles of universalizability, then they are acting morally. I would also have to agree that in each case of the extremist’s views above reasoned with rationality by accomplishing their task at hand and being consistent in their thoughts, actions, and reasoning, however, I do not see the morality in any of the examples that are explained directly