Kant's Theory Of Ethics Analysis

Better Essays
Assess Kant’s view that ethics should be based on duty not consequences.

Philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed his theory of ethics in his 1785 book ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’. He essentially argued that moral decisions shouldn’t be based on their consequences but rather our moral duty. The deontological approach to ethics is reasonable and straightforward; it provides a stability and certainty that cannot be achieved by looking at consequences. This being said, I feel as though the outcome of an action does affect its ‘goodness’ even if unknown- consequences shouldn’t be overlooked, therefore I disagree with Kant.

Kant (1724-1804) believed that the instructions/moral code we live by should be categorical imperatives not hypothetical
…show more content…
Kant says that an action cannot be deemed as completely moral if it cannot be universalised. The principle is very just as it rules out the possibility of making exceptions for yourself, obligating you to keep your promises and act towards a certain moral standard. For example if you needed to lie in a situation, you need to think what if everyone lied? The situation would result in chaos and the whole idea of truth being questioned too, as human relationships need trust to function the causality of lying would mean trust would be impossible. On a grand scale, lying is typically associated with being negative but sometimes lying is used in our daily lives to be more moral e.g. telling white lies to make someone feel better. Kant would still rule these out as in his view all lying is wrong. Benjamin Constant put forward the question of the inquiring murderer at the door. If a murderer came to your door asking you for the whereabouts of your friend (whom you know is upstairs) in order to kill them. Your maxim of lying would seem like the right thing to do to protect your friend, however Kant says that this would go against your duty and therefore you would in fact have to tell the murderer the truth. Kant chooses to look at the act as an isolated action, in that situation all you are doing is telling the truth-whatever follows (regardless of how unfortunate) is automatically not your fault as consequences do not play a …show more content…
The second formulation is the ‘Principle of Ends not Means’, it works on the basis that all people are equal and therefore it is wrong to exploit others or use them for personal benefits. This formulation shows how Kant had a respect for the value of humans, which is obviously important for an ethical theory; Kant believed that all people were an end in themselves. It also displays the importance of intention. You shouldn’t carry out an act that you know will treat someone as just a means, even if it benefits a greater good (contrast to utilitarianism). Kant thought that through helping others gain happiness (not treating them as just means) we also developed our own moral perfection- this also links in with Kant’s desire for a better society overall. This formulation gives importance to the individuals well being which is a very fair system that we can easily apply to situations evident today such a sweatshops being wrong as the workers are

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    This maxim calls us to respect others and ourselves as people with moral worth and dignity. Kant believed that since each human was born with the ability to ration, they therefore, are all creatures of moral worth. By avoiding the use of people as a mere means, we can guarantee that the action is morally worthy. In order to act with moral worth, we are called by the ‘Rights Test’ to “recognize human beings as valuable in and of themselves, regardless of their physical and mental attributes… or what they are worth to others” (Hamilton). Ultimately, a Kantian ethical framework does not emphasize the outcome that is achieved by an action, but instead, determines the moral worth of an action based on the motive behind it.…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He says, “The greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill 52). Mill’s utilitarian ethical theory rely majorly on the self-interest rather performing an act as a duty. An ethical theory should have a reason justified for performing a specific act. The ability of an act to yield maximum happiness should not be used to determine whether the act is moral or immoral. It involves assessing what the people perceive to be moral and taking actions which will produce insignificant consequences on the people other than the individual performing the act.…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant believes that the action of duty has moral worth and if we were to avoid the doubt and have the lack of belief of our ethics, it must be rational based, unconditional. The good will in the act of duty is “good with-in itself”. Kant describes ethics as action as any sort…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mill used utilitarianism as a basis for ethics and he argued that we already do use utilitarianism as a moral standard. To Mill an action is right if it promotes happiness and it is wrong if it reverse happiness. Kant on the other hand bases his view of ethics on good will rather than the outcomes of happiness. As we read, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes of happiness, here we can concluded that it is based on ends, not on means or intentions. I do not totally agree with this however, a person could intend something bad and wrong but in the end, end up causing great happiness.…

    • 1351 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He also argues that a completely ethical person will not be conflicted about his ethical choice, opposite of Kant, who thinks that a person can make an ethical choice while desiring the wrong alternative. In fact, he prefers that, because it shows that the person is doing his duty, not the action just because it makes him happy. Kant might defend himself by saying that it would be too easy for a person to succumb to selfish desires if he is gaining happiness from his virtuous acts, and any action is not moral if there are any external motivators, but I will show how this defense fails near the end of the paper. Kant and Aristotle have very different opinions on what makes a person virtuous and what defines a virtuous act. My thoughts on morality line up more with Aristotle’s.…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Utilitarians would have some substantial critiques for Kantians, calling their morality too ridged. The categorical imperative is too unforgiven to the subtleties of circumstance, which could result in dire, avoidable consequences, such as in the previous example. Contrastingly, a Kantian might say that Utilitarianism is also too ridged, but in a different way. Since Utilitarianism demands that people work towards improving the overall happiness, people must consider everyone’s happiness in every situation, not just follow certain concrete rules that pervade only particular…

    • 1645 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rationality meaning one 's judge of values and one 's guide to action.“Settle, for sure and universally, what conduct will promote the happiness of a rational being.”( Kant) Kant first starts by arguing that we are indeed responsible for what we do. The actions that we take are not just a set of events that we have no control over. Other philosophers believe that they are just another set of events that are determined by the things we cannot control. He also bases morality as a matter of duty that is common sense. Whether we feel against or not we know the morally right thing and it’s our duty to care out our action.…

    • 881 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ethical ideologies are inherent and play a vital role in our decision to make moral decisions and whether or not those decisions are right or wrong. Two major philosophers that proposed two theories of ethics that gave an understand of what is right or wrong are Kant and Nagel. Kant theorized that the rightness or wrongness of actions doesn’t depend on our consequences but on whether we fulfill our duty. Nagel proposed the idea of Moral Luck and said that Moral Luck occurs when we judge an agent or assign moral blame or praise for an action or it’s consequences even if it is clear that an agent had no control in the situation. Through the theory of Moral Luck there are four types of non-moral luck that play a factor in the morality of an action…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Lack Of Good Will Analysis

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Kant says that people have a perfect duty to not lie because it can be avoided by simply not lying. For example, the theory can’t help us to resolve conflicts of duty i.e. telling the truth versus protecting your loved one. The problem with this argument is that we are able to lie without following the rule “It is okay to lie.” This rule can be changed to “It is okay to lie when doing so will save someone’s life.” This is the problem, if a perfect duty like this can be thwarted, then almost any maxim could be rephrased to universalized in a manner to permit anything without contradiction, making it moral. Maxims can be described in a way that reflects the circumstances of the situation, so the Kantian would say that it is not necessary to interpret the theory as prohibiting lying in all circumstances.…

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant begins with looking at the concept of ‘good in itself;’ he shows only good will can be good without qualification (Kant, 1785, 18). Kant is not saying there are not other good things out there, he is just saying all other goods are qualified and only instrumentally good. Kant is saying the only thing that can be completely good is ‘good will’ (20). To act out of ‘good will’ means to act out of a sense of ‘moral obligations’ or ‘duty,’ one shouldn’t be acting for what the action produces, but ‘preforming them because they are impelled thereto by some other inclination (22). So, ‘an action is done from duty’, if it derives its moral worth not from the right or wrong of action, ‘but from the maxim by which it is determined’ (24).…

    • 2031 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays