Luke Schuh
Deontological Ethics Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontological ethics or duty ethics states that we are morally obligated to follow a set of rules regardless of what the final result may be. Kant believes that the world needs to be moral and from this he considers that we need sound motivation for those moral choices. This leads Kant to create the categorical imperative, derived solely from reason, as a route to make those moral choices. This imperative, or command, is categorical because it applies unconditionally across the entirety of a category that contains people with a rational will. Kant first formulates the categorical imperative as a descriptive project when he sets up a procedure for determining moral actions and then later …show more content…
From this, Kant reasons that the only way someone can have moral worth is if his or her actions are motivated by morality and duty rather than by the final result. This statement leads to Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, which states that we should “act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, 429). That is to respect other people as having a rational will and because of that rational will not using the person for an advantage. This is because using that person doesn’t allow for him or her to reach his or her maximum potential. Kant arrives at this kingdom of ends from the universalization test because once natural law is seen as universal law; we then recognize that that law equally binds all rational beings. We must then recognize those rational beings as moral agents and treat them as ends, not as a means to an …show more content…
This is the idea that we are the authors of our morals laws as well as the ones who follow those laws. There are two potential ways that this could be possible. The first possibility, such as in the way the Constitution works, is that we as a group of rational people created a moral law in the past and because we have now joined that group of rational people we are bound to that law. Another, and in my eyes, better conclusion for this statement by Kant is that every one of us becomes an author of the moral law when we assess a choice through the universalization test. When a choice passes the system and is determined to be moral, then it the person, who knows the purpose behind it and who put it through the test, that wrote that moral law. It is then said that any rational being can be an author for any moral law and there can multiple authors for any of those laws. We are bound to these moral laws, which are objective and exceed our subjective selves, willingly, yet we are still free when it is due to our sense of duty. The binding to these laws actually enhances our freedom in a sense, because when we know the limitations of what we can or can’t do it allows us to explore other viable options and act more
Deontological Ethics Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontological ethics or duty ethics states that we are morally obligated to follow a set of rules regardless of what the final result may be. Kant believes that the world needs to be moral and from this he considers that we need sound motivation for those moral choices. This leads Kant to create the categorical imperative, derived solely from reason, as a route to make those moral choices. This imperative, or command, is categorical because it applies unconditionally across the entirety of a category that contains people with a rational will. Kant first formulates the categorical imperative as a descriptive project when he sets up a procedure for determining moral actions and then later …show more content…
From this, Kant reasons that the only way someone can have moral worth is if his or her actions are motivated by morality and duty rather than by the final result. This statement leads to Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, which states that we should “act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, 429). That is to respect other people as having a rational will and because of that rational will not using the person for an advantage. This is because using that person doesn’t allow for him or her to reach his or her maximum potential. Kant arrives at this kingdom of ends from the universalization test because once natural law is seen as universal law; we then recognize that that law equally binds all rational beings. We must then recognize those rational beings as moral agents and treat them as ends, not as a means to an …show more content…
This is the idea that we are the authors of our morals laws as well as the ones who follow those laws. There are two potential ways that this could be possible. The first possibility, such as in the way the Constitution works, is that we as a group of rational people created a moral law in the past and because we have now joined that group of rational people we are bound to that law. Another, and in my eyes, better conclusion for this statement by Kant is that every one of us becomes an author of the moral law when we assess a choice through the universalization test. When a choice passes the system and is determined to be moral, then it the person, who knows the purpose behind it and who put it through the test, that wrote that moral law. It is then said that any rational being can be an author for any moral law and there can multiple authors for any of those laws. We are bound to these moral laws, which are objective and exceed our subjective selves, willingly, yet we are still free when it is due to our sense of duty. The binding to these laws actually enhances our freedom in a sense, because when we know the limitations of what we can or can’t do it allows us to explore other viable options and act more