Immanuel Kant was a memorable philosopher of the eighteenth century most famously credited by his work The Critique of Pure Reason, which played a role in the revolution of Western philosophy. In a later publish of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant introduces Kantian ethics which consist of theories such as the categorical imperative. Unlike many philosophers of the time, Kant also bases his ethical values off reason, instead of God. Also when making decisions using Kantian ethics, Kant supports the result of happiness, but not at the expense of prohibited actions. When comparing philosophical views to reach the conclusion of what is right, John Stuart Mill can be compared as he showcases the principle of utility, holding
…show more content…
Kant’s Categorical Imperative may be explained by acting in such a way that the motivating factor, also called the maxim, of the action may become a universal law. For example if you were to be kind to a friend, the action would be done specifically for the value of kindness and not for the expectation of anything in return. Additionally, specific actions are prohibited even if that action would result in happiness. Such actions include murder, theft, adultery, and numerous other acts conflicting with morality. In order to address an action, Kant asks the question, “Can you also will that your maxim should become a universal law?” (Kant 114). If an individual can only answer that question with no, then the intended action must not be performed. Furthermore on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, he believed this concept was the determination of moral duties. Hypothetical imperatives serve as a command to reach an outcome. If you want outcome X, then you must do X. For example, if you want to succeed on a test, then you must properly study for the test. The difference between the hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives is the unconditional terms a categorical imperative applies to. For example, do not murder is unconditional. As a result, morality is based off of categorical imperatives. Kant also introduces the formula of Universal Law which states how you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to let everyone else do as well. For example, if you make a promise you must keep it. If everyone broke their promises, there would not be any value in a promise. Since everyone else cannot break their promises, neither can
Kant’s Categorical Imperative may be explained by acting in such a way that the motivating factor, also called the maxim, of the action may become a universal law. For example if you were to be kind to a friend, the action would be done specifically for the value of kindness and not for the expectation of anything in return. Additionally, specific actions are prohibited even if that action would result in happiness. Such actions include murder, theft, adultery, and numerous other acts conflicting with morality. In order to address an action, Kant asks the question, “Can you also will that your maxim should become a universal law?” (Kant 114). If an individual can only answer that question with no, then the intended action must not be performed. Furthermore on Kant’s Categorical Imperative, he believed this concept was the determination of moral duties. Hypothetical imperatives serve as a command to reach an outcome. If you want outcome X, then you must do X. For example, if you want to succeed on a test, then you must properly study for the test. The difference between the hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives is the unconditional terms a categorical imperative applies to. For example, do not murder is unconditional. As a result, morality is based off of categorical imperatives. Kant also introduces the formula of Universal Law which states how you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you would not be willing to let everyone else do as well. For example, if you make a promise you must keep it. If everyone broke their promises, there would not be any value in a promise. Since everyone else cannot break their promises, neither can