To have good will is to do one’s moral duty and to most people this comes naturally Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher who believed that duty and rules come above all else. When discussing Kant theory on moral rules we find that he has no exception to the rule of lying. This does not change for any human depending on their social status. From a peasant to a king the outcome of breaking the rule will still be the same. Categorical imperative is an” unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose”. (oxford dictionary, 2017) Kant expresses the CI as this, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
…show more content…
It is considered solely on duty and obligation. “Our behavior should be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that hold true in all circumstances” (EMP, p. 139). He said lying for any reason is “the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being.” (EMP, p. 138) One of Kant’s arguments states if a man needed money and he knew no one would help him.unless he promised to pay it back. He knew he couldn’t pay it back and debts lying to get the money. Kant said this is wrong no matter the need for the money. Should he still lie to get the money? What if we looked at this from the point of view of the person asking for the money. He may need it to feed his family. His children may be starving and feels it is better to lie and get money then to steal the food. Is he still morally wrong for wanting to feed his children. On the other hand stealing is as bad as lying in Kants eyes , so why not just steal the food. The question then becomes are they asking for money because there is a consequence by the law for stealing and if he gets caught could go to jail? It would be easier to lie to a person about paying them back then to go to jail. Since Kants Catergorical imperative says lying is wrong even if a person has inclination or purpose then the children in this case would starve. I do not think Kant’s argument on lying is a sound one. This man is doing what is morally right to feed his family. Letting children starve is morally wrong since they have no means of feeding themselves. Now when Kant wrote this theroy it was in a different era and in the present day our society has means that people can get food without asking for money or stealing food. We have food banks that will give people free food. Now this may not be a permanent fix but neither is lying for money or stealing food. I cannot see how this would be logical argument. However, as Rachels states Kant did say that we should do only those
It is considered solely on duty and obligation. “Our behavior should be guided by universal laws, which are moral rules that hold true in all circumstances” (EMP, p. 139). He said lying for any reason is “the obliteration of one’s dignity as a human being.” (EMP, p. 138) One of Kant’s arguments states if a man needed money and he knew no one would help him.unless he promised to pay it back. He knew he couldn’t pay it back and debts lying to get the money. Kant said this is wrong no matter the need for the money. Should he still lie to get the money? What if we looked at this from the point of view of the person asking for the money. He may need it to feed his family. His children may be starving and feels it is better to lie and get money then to steal the food. Is he still morally wrong for wanting to feed his children. On the other hand stealing is as bad as lying in Kants eyes , so why not just steal the food. The question then becomes are they asking for money because there is a consequence by the law for stealing and if he gets caught could go to jail? It would be easier to lie to a person about paying them back then to go to jail. Since Kants Catergorical imperative says lying is wrong even if a person has inclination or purpose then the children in this case would starve. I do not think Kant’s argument on lying is a sound one. This man is doing what is morally right to feed his family. Letting children starve is morally wrong since they have no means of feeding themselves. Now when Kant wrote this theroy it was in a different era and in the present day our society has means that people can get food without asking for money or stealing food. We have food banks that will give people free food. Now this may not be a permanent fix but neither is lying for money or stealing food. I cannot see how this would be logical argument. However, as Rachels states Kant did say that we should do only those