Kant is a philosopher that precedes Plato. His moral ideology is that of a social contract, He brings forth that natural law and mill, utilitarianism, is asserted. Kant has two versions of a categorical imperative. He sees this as a supreme principle of morality which embodies and compares to the bottom up ethics. This is rooted not in human happiness but in the human will/reason that is also referred to as the state of mind. He evolves into cases that illustrate the two categorical imperatives, one includes a maximum will and an universal law whereas the other includes treatment of a person as an end and as a mean. Kant develops how ethics is incorporated with the Categorical imperative.
Kant has two categorical imperative (CI) that …show more content…
This case involves a man who finds himself in comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather than doing what he knows is acceptable, good and right. He continues to engage in his sexual behavior. Then the question is asked “is it morally permissible for him to continue with his sex acts/relations to satisfy his deep biological urges?” This is where the maximum comes in, this evaluates that he can have sexual relations for his own enjoyment even though he is neglecting his responsibility. The Universal law is then made stating that everyone can indulge in sexiual relationships if it satifies their urgese. However, he shouldn’t have a sexual relationship because it can ruin his already set relationship and companionship which he might desire at a later time. This concludes that he can not indulge in sex because the law can not be legislated as a moral law. (paragraph 423 #3 Grounding for the Metaphysics of …show more content…
If it isn’t permissible, then they should rethink the something they want to do. I conclude with this thought because in any situation you should think of things as an end meaning with value or as a person and not something as a mean meaning as an object that you just really want. I would agree with because you should always think through a situation before you do it. Your actions could come with a consequence if you don’t do the right thing. In other words, if you go against the universal law, the consequences will not be in your favor because it is morally
Kant has two categorical imperative (CI) that …show more content…
This case involves a man who finds himself in comfortable circumstances and prefers to indulge in pleasure rather than doing what he knows is acceptable, good and right. He continues to engage in his sexual behavior. Then the question is asked “is it morally permissible for him to continue with his sex acts/relations to satisfy his deep biological urges?” This is where the maximum comes in, this evaluates that he can have sexual relations for his own enjoyment even though he is neglecting his responsibility. The Universal law is then made stating that everyone can indulge in sexiual relationships if it satifies their urgese. However, he shouldn’t have a sexual relationship because it can ruin his already set relationship and companionship which he might desire at a later time. This concludes that he can not indulge in sex because the law can not be legislated as a moral law. (paragraph 423 #3 Grounding for the Metaphysics of …show more content…
If it isn’t permissible, then they should rethink the something they want to do. I conclude with this thought because in any situation you should think of things as an end meaning with value or as a person and not something as a mean meaning as an object that you just really want. I would agree with because you should always think through a situation before you do it. Your actions could come with a consequence if you don’t do the right thing. In other words, if you go against the universal law, the consequences will not be in your favor because it is morally