Kant has an interesting approach to ethics, one that many people would agree with. Contrary to Aristotle, Kant believes ethics should be based on good will. Meaning, we should look at moral actions not by finding the good in the action, but doing the action with goodness. He explains how this can be done with his categorical imperative and the two formulations of it. These formulations help us decide whether or not our actions are based off of goodwill or our own inclinations. He gives multiple examples to elucidate on how to use this formulation.
Kant believes happiness is not the end, but being good because it is our duty and doing this with a good intention. For example, if a man gave charity because he felt bad for the less fortunate, he is not a good as someone giving because it is his duty. The later is doing his action out of good will, whereas the first felt bad. Kant focuses on our duty to others because it is the right thing to …show more content…
Kant explains this by stating, “ It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows,” (pg 26). A categorical imperative looks at the action and matches it to a duty whether it be speaking the truth, picking up trash, or keeping promises. The first formulation is act in a way that your maxim can become a universal law (pg 30). The second formulation is to treat humanity in a way that is the end, but not a means to an end. Among the examples Kant stated was a man who promised to return borrowed money knowing that would be an impossible task. He made a false promise and did not do his duty to the one who gave him the money. Using the first formulation, if this became a universal law, promises would keep no value. They would be soulless words. With the first formulation in mind, this maxim could not become a universal law, thus being a violation of good
Kant believes happiness is not the end, but being good because it is our duty and doing this with a good intention. For example, if a man gave charity because he felt bad for the less fortunate, he is not a good as someone giving because it is his duty. The later is doing his action out of good will, whereas the first felt bad. Kant focuses on our duty to others because it is the right thing to …show more content…
Kant explains this by stating, “ It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows,” (pg 26). A categorical imperative looks at the action and matches it to a duty whether it be speaking the truth, picking up trash, or keeping promises. The first formulation is act in a way that your maxim can become a universal law (pg 30). The second formulation is to treat humanity in a way that is the end, but not a means to an end. Among the examples Kant stated was a man who promised to return borrowed money knowing that would be an impossible task. He made a false promise and did not do his duty to the one who gave him the money. Using the first formulation, if this became a universal law, promises would keep no value. They would be soulless words. With the first formulation in mind, this maxim could not become a universal law, thus being a violation of good