Categorical Imperatives Immanuel Kant

The final ethical theory is Kant’s deontology. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who admire the stoics for their dedication to performing their duties and playing their part. He based his theory on duties, obligations, and rights. Its main focus is that everyone has an inherited right. It highlights the importance of respecting a person autonomy.

This particular dilemma reiterates the notion of the Derivation of Duties that Kant discusses in his Categorical Imperative ethical approach. Kant explains that people have to learn to distinguish between perfect and imperfect duties. An example of a perfect duty would be that we should never commit murder under the circumstance, while an example of a imperfect duty be that we are required to treat all living beings with kindness and respect. The FWS are at a crossroads when it comes to satisfying both duties equally. Why should the barred owl be wiped out just to give the spotted owl better chance to thrive?

The end does not justify the means. This was the principal ethical theory of Immanuel Kant and made up his ‘Categorical Imperative’, a deontological argument which showcased how certain actions are fundamentally wrong, such as murder, lying or torture and can therefore, never be justified. Contrastingly a utilitarian would claim that the ends do in fact justify the means and would enact a focus on outcomes in deciding whether or not an action is morally permissible. In 2002 Jakob Von Metzler, a boy of just twelve years, was kidnapped and a police officer threatened the kidnapper, Magnus Gafgen, with torture in an attempt to find and save the child. Gafgen told the officer that he had killed the boy and then disclosed the location of the body.

Categorical Imperatives are rules you absolutely have to follow, which does not include your religious outlook, your desires, and or moral obligations. There are two famous rules/laws that we can identify and use in this case. The first one is “Act such that the maximum (principal) of your action can be willed to become universal law.” What Kant is saying here is we should only take action that can be

Dystopian literature often approaches similar ideas, conveying an author’s rendition of an alternate and undesirable reality. However, embedded within these representations are concepts pertaining to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Bentham’s consequentialist theory of Utilitarianism, each which present in themselves contrasting ideals. The discussion pertaining to these two conflicting philosophies within the dystopian genre are highly relevant, wherein they are tied in to exceed a set point. These ideologies effectively bring to the audience distinct perspectives towards the worth of an individual, the worth of the system, and the overall morality of said dystopian governments within the dystopian genre.

Kant’s moral philosophy stands on the notion of good will, an intrinsic good which is perceived to be so without qualification, independent of any external factors. Thus, he dismisses other values that could be taken as good in themselves, such as happiness, honesty, courage, trust etc. as they have worth only under specific conditions, whereas in others they could be transposed into bad acts. For example, trust is necessary for one to be able to manipulate others, one must have courage to be able to

Immanuel Kant believed that genuine morality was based on reason, with a catch that is. Kant spent a considerable amount of his life attempting to distinguish human nature apart from animal nature. He concluded that humans possessed the divine trait of reason and through a sense of duty should apply that very same trait in order to become worthy of happiness. In his pursuit to systematically define human morality, Kant, composed the Categorical Imperative. The foundational concept of this work was a stated: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

The categorical imperative of Kant may be applied to modern day morality but not entirely. The imperative put forth by Kant follows the fundamentals of absolutes, which in many cases are true. However, when standing alone the categorical imperative does not cover all aspects of the spectrum and therefore would not be applicable in form alone. The primary reason for which Kant’s imperative fails would be or can be directly caused by variant situations. For example, what if there were to be a situation that on either hand the action would be deemed immoral, which would be chosen?

I hope to convince the reader that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is the better way to live a morally conscious life and more practical to follow as well. First I will briefly describe both Kant’s and Mill’s principles. Then I will go on to explain the advantages and disadvantages of both. Finally, I hope to provide a counterargument for some of Kant’s Categorical Imperatives downfalls. Kant states the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general natural law."

A categorical imperative, then, would express a reason for acting which was unconditional in the sense of not being contingent upon any present desire of the agent to whose satisfaction the recommended action would contribute as a means--or more directly... (Rachels, 2010, p. 53) In this way we understand that when we "ought" to do something we are expressing the kind of action that we are willing to take to meet the goal morally where we should be. And that is where the skeptic draws the line because he believes that there should be no boundary or moral code that you should have to answer to, or the reasons for answering it. He just believes in his own judgements that will get him through life without morals or binding guidelines.

The situation in above case is not the new one for us as per study of Universal Ethics and Utilitarianism philosophies as Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative that clearly states that moral law applies to every rational being and it will be totally independent of any personal desire, objective or motive. However, Utilitarianism Philosophy describes that moral actions of beings will be those which directly maximize the utility. On the other side, Universal Ethical Law states that moral law will be applicable to every human being in the world regardless their region, religious or community and this law will be independent to any particular quality or specification. If we go through and test Luke's case when he wants taking suggestion and advice

Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie. Kant introduced categorical imperative which states that people ought to do something regardless of the consequences.

According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and when we obey our own reason, only then are we truly free.” (Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Page 1) Kant’s views would most be considered to be identified as deontological ethics. The true meaning is “falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what

If an action appears to be contradicting itself when being universalized therefore it is not considered a maxim or the kind of action that should not be morally permissible. One might commit an action and act based on reason but the action itself is morally wrong. According to Kant, a good person is an individual who does their duty because it is morally right. The purpose is to be a good person morally for goodness sake. The moral worth of an action cannot be formulated on any actions and its outcome because an action must be determined by the universalization test for it to be morally right and permissible to act based on

To conclude this essay, it is evident that this kind of debate can never truly be solved. We can however see that it is clear that Kant’s categorical imperative can certainly be applied to Freud’s Superego section of the self, because both of these concepts influence the self to do the best possible thing in every situation and to try to live in a way that minimises harm. While Kant’s categorical imperative seems to be rather idealistic, it is a genuinely good way to want to conduct your life. By living in the way you ought to behave and wanting people to do the same, is a good way to live, but sadly it will never be truly possible because of the injustices and unfairness in the world. People seem to allow their Superegos to become overridden