In my paper I will be discussing that Kantian Ethics can make decide to do the wrong thing sometimes because of Kant’s maxims, his view on good will and also and also will be discussing the FEI and treating humanity merely as a means, also will be discussing his views on reason vs. desire. With these reasons come objections can refute his belief by stating good points, this objection is the murderer at the door. Even though there are objection to Kantian ethics I will respond to these objections in such a way that Kant would respond to anyone with these objections. Therefore because of Kant’s maxims, his views on good will and also using his ideas on using a person merely as means and also the FEI and his views on reason vs. desire.
In Kantian …show more content…
What this objection is that if there is a murderer at the door should you tell him the truth if he ask you if you have seen the person he is looking for. Naturally the answer to this question would be no to most people, but to Kant he looks at it differently. What Kant argues is that if there is a murderer at the door you have a moral obligation to tell the truth to the murderer if you have seen the person or not. Kant argues this by talking about good will and how you act based upon reason also if it morally correct to lie to the murderer at the door. Kant explains to us that we have a moral duty to tell the truth and to not lie because if we do lie then we our not acting morally or fulfilling our duty to tell the truth. Kant also talks about maxims and how you see yourself acting on this situation by lying but also knowing that you if you do then you are acting immorally.Reason vs. desire these are the two ways in which you make decision. Kant discusses that reason is the same for all rational creatures which is why you might think letting the murderer know that you have seen the person is crazy but actually isn’t. Kant also uses FEI as an argument to people who think you should lie to the murderer at the door as well. He does this by saying when lying to the murderer at the door you are using the other person merely as a means and by doing this you violate IC or informed consent. When violating FEI it proves that your action is not morally correct and that even though there is a murderer at the door you should tell him that you have seen the person he is looking
In Kantian …show more content…
What this objection is that if there is a murderer at the door should you tell him the truth if he ask you if you have seen the person he is looking for. Naturally the answer to this question would be no to most people, but to Kant he looks at it differently. What Kant argues is that if there is a murderer at the door you have a moral obligation to tell the truth to the murderer if you have seen the person or not. Kant argues this by talking about good will and how you act based upon reason also if it morally correct to lie to the murderer at the door. Kant explains to us that we have a moral duty to tell the truth and to not lie because if we do lie then we our not acting morally or fulfilling our duty to tell the truth. Kant also talks about maxims and how you see yourself acting on this situation by lying but also knowing that you if you do then you are acting immorally.Reason vs. desire these are the two ways in which you make decision. Kant discusses that reason is the same for all rational creatures which is why you might think letting the murderer know that you have seen the person is crazy but actually isn’t. Kant also uses FEI as an argument to people who think you should lie to the murderer at the door as well. He does this by saying when lying to the murderer at the door you are using the other person merely as a means and by doing this you violate IC or informed consent. When violating FEI it proves that your action is not morally correct and that even though there is a murderer at the door you should tell him that you have seen the person he is looking