Universal Moral Rightness
Amongst philosophers there is much debate over what makes an act right or wrong and whether or not that act has to be inherently wrong or is circumstantial. For an act to be right, must it be possible to will that everyone acts the same way in similar circumstances? According to Immanuel Kant, an 18th century Prussian philosopher, as well as many other deontological philosophers: yes. However, this moral interpretation can manifest conflicts and discrepancies of duty. Kant presented a universal and impartial moral code called the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is meant to help us make moral decisions. However, it discounts moral emotions such as compassion and sympathy as appropriate and ethical …show more content…
Moral rightness, or ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies and determines what is right and what is wrong. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies reality in the universe. The question of whether or not an act has to be universally right entails the knowledge of both studies, and in order to answer it you must know the difference between right and wrong, and the reality of what people should do in circumstances, if there is one. According to Kant, metaphysics is intuition-based as well as based on synthetic a priori judgements. This means that the truth of what is right or wrong is strictly undetermined by external stimuli, predispositions, or emotions during the situation. Instead, it is logically consistent. His deontological moral system is based around categorical imperatives as an alternative to hypothetical ones. He firmly believed that hypothetical imperatives, or any action based on desire, cannot persuade moral actions and judgements within a society, because the imperatives on which they rely are too heavily based on subjective circumstances. Although, this is true in the sense that it is important to have a legislative and executive governing branch that does determine societies’ morals by enforcing laws. It is also important to have a judicial law that can interpret them when needed. For example, it is unlawful and wrong to murder. However, if it is to protect yourself or family, there is a moral reasoning to do it. Therefore, there is no way an act can be universally morally right or
Amongst philosophers there is much debate over what makes an act right or wrong and whether or not that act has to be inherently wrong or is circumstantial. For an act to be right, must it be possible to will that everyone acts the same way in similar circumstances? According to Immanuel Kant, an 18th century Prussian philosopher, as well as many other deontological philosophers: yes. However, this moral interpretation can manifest conflicts and discrepancies of duty. Kant presented a universal and impartial moral code called the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is meant to help us make moral decisions. However, it discounts moral emotions such as compassion and sympathy as appropriate and ethical …show more content…
Moral rightness, or ethics is a branch of philosophy that studies and determines what is right and what is wrong. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies reality in the universe. The question of whether or not an act has to be universally right entails the knowledge of both studies, and in order to answer it you must know the difference between right and wrong, and the reality of what people should do in circumstances, if there is one. According to Kant, metaphysics is intuition-based as well as based on synthetic a priori judgements. This means that the truth of what is right or wrong is strictly undetermined by external stimuli, predispositions, or emotions during the situation. Instead, it is logically consistent. His deontological moral system is based around categorical imperatives as an alternative to hypothetical ones. He firmly believed that hypothetical imperatives, or any action based on desire, cannot persuade moral actions and judgements within a society, because the imperatives on which they rely are too heavily based on subjective circumstances. Although, this is true in the sense that it is important to have a legislative and executive governing branch that does determine societies’ morals by enforcing laws. It is also important to have a judicial law that can interpret them when needed. For example, it is unlawful and wrong to murder. However, if it is to protect yourself or family, there is a moral reasoning to do it. Therefore, there is no way an act can be universally morally right or