I will argue that my personal moral system derives important elements from the moral theories of Kant on the highest good, and Foot on virtue. I will illustrate my argument with the situation of giving money to a homeless man. First the situation must be explained. I am walking in Chicago, and there is a homeless man on the street. As I get close to him he asks me for some money. Now there are two possible options for how I could respond. I could stop and give him some money, or I could lie and say that I do not have any money to give him and continue on my way. The first philosopher that I will use to analyze this situation is Kant. Kant’s morality comes from his idea of the “Highest Good.” In his work he says “Duty introduces another
…show more content…
According to Kant universal law is “a maxim adopted from which, as well as from every end may one have, we here abstract altogether” (Gregor 1996, 283). What Kant means by this is, after we have willed something we then make it a universal law. He defines universal law as a maxim that we all have. Thus he is saying that after we will something, it becomes universal to all and everyone will do that same thing. When I lie to the homeless man about having money to give I am then making the universal law that lying is an acceptable act. Then as a result everyone in the world will lie because I have made it the universal …show more content…
In the reading Foot says “Virtues, which I might express by saying they are corrective” (Foot 1978, 8). Then a few lines later she also says “there is a temptation to be resisted” (Foot 1978, 8). This very clearly shows that for Foot, for an act to be virtuous it must be done so that our own human temptations are resisted. She believes that’s they are corrective, meaning that they are there to correct us from following our own desires and wants. She is implying that if we do things that satisfy our natural human desires the act is not virtuous. Charity is a virtue because it requires us to give up something of our own for
According to Kant universal law is “a maxim adopted from which, as well as from every end may one have, we here abstract altogether” (Gregor 1996, 283). What Kant means by this is, after we have willed something we then make it a universal law. He defines universal law as a maxim that we all have. Thus he is saying that after we will something, it becomes universal to all and everyone will do that same thing. When I lie to the homeless man about having money to give I am then making the universal law that lying is an acceptable act. Then as a result everyone in the world will lie because I have made it the universal …show more content…
In the reading Foot says “Virtues, which I might express by saying they are corrective” (Foot 1978, 8). Then a few lines later she also says “there is a temptation to be resisted” (Foot 1978, 8). This very clearly shows that for Foot, for an act to be virtuous it must be done so that our own human temptations are resisted. She believes that’s they are corrective, meaning that they are there to correct us from following our own desires and wants. She is implying that if we do things that satisfy our natural human desires the act is not virtuous. Charity is a virtue because it requires us to give up something of our own for