According to Kant, an actions moral worth is based off of its motive and a means to the end. “If the action be good only as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is thought of as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself conforms to reason and its principal, then the imperative is categorical…” (Kant, 434). Essentially, what Kant is saying is that if an action is necessary and has good intentions, it is categorical. If the action is only used to get something for oneself and is not necessary, then it is hypothetical. A means to an end has to benefit everyone. Kant believed that everything must follow the categorical imperative, meaning that there is a command of reason that is valid
…show more content…
An example would be saving someone who is choking in a restaurant. The act of saving that person is only a moral duty if you complete the act with no strings attached. This means that you do not expect fame or money or any other outcome besides the person to stop choking and live. A hypothetical imperative would be something that one must do to continue living. For example if you are hungry you eat. As long as you are not pulling the food away from someone who doesn 't have food, this is moral. When discussing categorical law, Kant wrote that you should “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Kant, 434). A maxim is the action that you are performing/doing. In other words, his theory stated that you should act in the way in which your actions can become a universal law. In simple terms, suppose everyone were to do the same action you are about to perform, if it is morally responsible than it okay to act in that manner. If it’s not moral, then the action is forbidden. For example, if I murder this man does that mean that everyone else can murder whoever they …show more content…
If a man walks into a store and sees an expensive item he wants, but cannot afford, he devises a plan to steal it. This is not moral according to the categorical imperative because that would mean that theft would need to become universal law. The best way to think about it is, categorical imperative means that for an action to be considered moral than that action must be moral enough for it to become universal law and every other person would be allowed to do it. I believe Kant is correct in saying that “a human being, and in general every rational being, does exist as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be used by this or what will as it pleases.” (Kant, 436). I agree with Kant that you should always treat a person as an end in themselves because it keeps you from using someone and not looking at the end from their prospective. What I mean by that is, it allows you to view an action from an angle of not how it will just benefit you but all persons involved. By including someone else’s wellbeing in your actions you are taking responsibility for your actions and someone else’s means to an end. Responsibility means that you feel morally obligated to do something or protect something. So by being responsible in your actions, you are following Kant’s idea of treating a person as an end in
An example would be saving someone who is choking in a restaurant. The act of saving that person is only a moral duty if you complete the act with no strings attached. This means that you do not expect fame or money or any other outcome besides the person to stop choking and live. A hypothetical imperative would be something that one must do to continue living. For example if you are hungry you eat. As long as you are not pulling the food away from someone who doesn 't have food, this is moral. When discussing categorical law, Kant wrote that you should “Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(Kant, 434). A maxim is the action that you are performing/doing. In other words, his theory stated that you should act in the way in which your actions can become a universal law. In simple terms, suppose everyone were to do the same action you are about to perform, if it is morally responsible than it okay to act in that manner. If it’s not moral, then the action is forbidden. For example, if I murder this man does that mean that everyone else can murder whoever they …show more content…
If a man walks into a store and sees an expensive item he wants, but cannot afford, he devises a plan to steal it. This is not moral according to the categorical imperative because that would mean that theft would need to become universal law. The best way to think about it is, categorical imperative means that for an action to be considered moral than that action must be moral enough for it to become universal law and every other person would be allowed to do it. I believe Kant is correct in saying that “a human being, and in general every rational being, does exist as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be used by this or what will as it pleases.” (Kant, 436). I agree with Kant that you should always treat a person as an end in themselves because it keeps you from using someone and not looking at the end from their prospective. What I mean by that is, it allows you to view an action from an angle of not how it will just benefit you but all persons involved. By including someone else’s wellbeing in your actions you are taking responsibility for your actions and someone else’s means to an end. Responsibility means that you feel morally obligated to do something or protect something. So by being responsible in your actions, you are following Kant’s idea of treating a person as an end in