1. Explanation of Kant’s 4 Cases
FIRST CASE: A person with many problems is tired of life. However, his reason is still intact that he can inquire himself about the possibility to commit suicide. Next, he asks himself if his action could become a universal law of nature, meaning other people in the same situation will follow the same rule. His rule of conduct states that because staying alive will bring more harm than contentment, and because he loves himself, he decided to take his own life. The question is that the love for himself can be considered a universal law of nature? No, because the decision is made based on his own feelings, on his own particular perception of his own life. This situation cannot be considered as a universal law …show more content…
A person in need does not have any excuse to lie and promise something that will never comply in order to get assistance. There are two issues here. First, not telling the true to receive favors is against good will. Also, cheating to get benefits is another way to commit fraud. Second, giving your word is considered more than a signed written contract. It is worst when the person knows that is unable to keep the promise. When applying the categorical imperative rule, asking if this could be a universal law of nature, the answer is no, because the person is using lies and false promises to receive a benefit and is taking advantage of the other …show more content…
A person that lives in abundance, or has a privileged life is morally obligated to help others, assisting in every aspect that is able to. It is true that every person is free. But we all know that there are circumstances out of our control that make us more vulnerable. The people that are in the position to help others should be held accountable for their welfare. If we ask the question about helping others is a universal law of nature, the answer is yes. People can not violate the human rights or deprive themselves because people consider helping others is not their business.
My conclusion is that Kant has a clear idea of how to question ourselves about this simple actions. To be responsible for our own body, life, welfare, happiness and also to be honest, to be a man of honor, and to help others to succeed in life. At the end of the day, we all are human beings striving to survive and pursuing happiness. If we all take the time to inquire ourselves this simple question, every time we have to make a decision, wether it is or is it not this action a universal law of nature. Eventually, we will become better human beings. We all should remember that takes a village to raise a
FIRST CASE: A person with many problems is tired of life. However, his reason is still intact that he can inquire himself about the possibility to commit suicide. Next, he asks himself if his action could become a universal law of nature, meaning other people in the same situation will follow the same rule. His rule of conduct states that because staying alive will bring more harm than contentment, and because he loves himself, he decided to take his own life. The question is that the love for himself can be considered a universal law of nature? No, because the decision is made based on his own feelings, on his own particular perception of his own life. This situation cannot be considered as a universal law …show more content…
A person in need does not have any excuse to lie and promise something that will never comply in order to get assistance. There are two issues here. First, not telling the true to receive favors is against good will. Also, cheating to get benefits is another way to commit fraud. Second, giving your word is considered more than a signed written contract. It is worst when the person knows that is unable to keep the promise. When applying the categorical imperative rule, asking if this could be a universal law of nature, the answer is no, because the person is using lies and false promises to receive a benefit and is taking advantage of the other …show more content…
A person that lives in abundance, or has a privileged life is morally obligated to help others, assisting in every aspect that is able to. It is true that every person is free. But we all know that there are circumstances out of our control that make us more vulnerable. The people that are in the position to help others should be held accountable for their welfare. If we ask the question about helping others is a universal law of nature, the answer is yes. People can not violate the human rights or deprive themselves because people consider helping others is not their business.
My conclusion is that Kant has a clear idea of how to question ourselves about this simple actions. To be responsible for our own body, life, welfare, happiness and also to be honest, to be a man of honor, and to help others to succeed in life. At the end of the day, we all are human beings striving to survive and pursuing happiness. If we all take the time to inquire ourselves this simple question, every time we have to make a decision, wether it is or is it not this action a universal law of nature. Eventually, we will become better human beings. We all should remember that takes a village to raise a