GSI: Daniel Khokhar
SID: 24427499 Kant’s ethical theory revolves around the existence of a supreme principle of morality that governs the rightness or wrongness of our actions, namely, the categorical imperative. In his written works, Kant brings forth his account of moral duty using the concept of the categorical imperative and its various formulations, claiming that the moral duty to help others in need follows from the categorical imperative. The formula of universal law, which urges us to “act on the basis of a maxim that could hold as a universal law (422),” argues that people should act on guiding principles that could qualify as laws for all rational beings; the idea of moral duty stems from this idea. The formula of humanity, …show more content…
One of Kant’s most popular arguments, it provides the most intuitive explanations for acting morally. While the formula for universal law is a strong argument, and while it does provide a clear decision procedure for individuals to rationally think about the rightness or wrongness of certain actions, it does not provide a framework through which to view other people as deserving of the moral duty that Kant believes we all have to one another, which seems to be a much more compelling argument. While immoral actions violating the formula for universal law do so because they are infeasible as universal laws that apply to all people, immoral actions that violate the formula for humanity do so because they violate the respect and human dignity with which we are bound to treat people. The argument that the action is intrinsically wrong because it violates respect of others’ rationality is much stronger than the argument that it is wrong simply because it cannot be carried out in practice. Kant derives our moral duty to others from both the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity, arguing that moral duty necessarily follows from both interpretations of the categorical imperative. While the formula for humanity presents an arguably stronger justification, both formulations require that we pursue only morally permissible actions through the categorical imperative
SID: 24427499 Kant’s ethical theory revolves around the existence of a supreme principle of morality that governs the rightness or wrongness of our actions, namely, the categorical imperative. In his written works, Kant brings forth his account of moral duty using the concept of the categorical imperative and its various formulations, claiming that the moral duty to help others in need follows from the categorical imperative. The formula of universal law, which urges us to “act on the basis of a maxim that could hold as a universal law (422),” argues that people should act on guiding principles that could qualify as laws for all rational beings; the idea of moral duty stems from this idea. The formula of humanity, …show more content…
One of Kant’s most popular arguments, it provides the most intuitive explanations for acting morally. While the formula for universal law is a strong argument, and while it does provide a clear decision procedure for individuals to rationally think about the rightness or wrongness of certain actions, it does not provide a framework through which to view other people as deserving of the moral duty that Kant believes we all have to one another, which seems to be a much more compelling argument. While immoral actions violating the formula for universal law do so because they are infeasible as universal laws that apply to all people, immoral actions that violate the formula for humanity do so because they violate the respect and human dignity with which we are bound to treat people. The argument that the action is intrinsically wrong because it violates respect of others’ rationality is much stronger than the argument that it is wrong simply because it cannot be carried out in practice. Kant derives our moral duty to others from both the formula of universal law and the formula of humanity, arguing that moral duty necessarily follows from both interpretations of the categorical imperative. While the formula for humanity presents an arguably stronger justification, both formulations require that we pursue only morally permissible actions through the categorical imperative