Immanuel Kant's Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Mo

Immanuel Kant argues in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals that we have “duties to ourselves” which leads some actions to be wrong; however, these actions do not concern to anyone but ourselves. Giving a loan to oneself and promising to pay it back is such a duty that some might believe in, but other than that most believe there are no duties at all. The action could not be wrong if the only one person directly involved in that action agrees to it. Some might beg to differ from this argument. Kant believes that we have duties to ourselves, and his notion of moral duty is explained so as to encompass the idea of “duty to oneself.” Kant supports the categorical imperative with three different rules, all of which convince me that we have moral duties to ourselves because these rules are in a sense applicable to everyday life. The three rules include the universal law, treat humans as ends in themselves, and act as if you live in the Kingdom of ends. Universal law is discussed first where Kant states, “There is only one categorical imperative. It is an act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time …show more content…
He states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity…always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant 36). Kant wants us to treat humans as a “mere” or how we would want to be treated. Humans should never be exploited or used for another purpose that would ultimately harm another human being. Our duty is to develop our moral abilities and seek the happiness of others; however, if that happiness prevents another human being from being happy, we should not go forth with that action. This principle is the most understandable because we still speak of it now. Children are always told by their elders, teachers, etc. to treat others how they themselves would want to be treated. This principle is relatable and effective. Lastly, Kant discusses the Kingdom of