Deontological Ethics and Emanuel Kant Essay

Describe Kants theory of craft as the basis of ethical motive (33 marks).Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the after-hours 18th century and was arguably unity of the greatest thinkers of every last(predicate) time. He came up with a guide to morals in direct competition to teontological or consequential theories. M either people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life, but what merely is Kants ethics? How did he believe we should face moral problems and how bum we apply it in our ein truth day lives?Instead of situation establish theories his theory was deontological ethics. This is a very absolute and objective form of ethics, which has been puddleed come about in using a rational thinking process. Kant believed that an ethical theory should be world-wideisable to be morally correct. This blind drunks it moldiness be able to be applied to everyone all over the world regardless of situations or circumstances. Kant believed for this to be affi rmable it moldiness contain some liaison that was unconditionally and universally grave.This must me someaffair that is intrinsically heavy which is entire in itself, the highest good without qualification. This thing that determines the moral worth of our motions give the axeful non be instrumentally good, something that completely becomes good pending the results of the en make upmention or like some things such as happiness, which atomic number 18 possible of making a situation morally worse. Kant believed that there was only one thing that is the regenerate thing for us to do in any situation to make us morally correct. He give tongue to that a morally good man is a man of good get out.Kant said that it was impossible to conceive anything in the world as good without qualification, except good pass on. For something to be of good pull up stakes, it is non drug-addicted on the goodness of what it effects or accomplishes. If it were, wherefore it could not be c onsidered to be of unconditional set and intrinsic goodness for it would become a style to an end not an end in itself. This leads us to because conclude that the consequences of any moral action argon irrelevant.Kant describes the most most-valuable thing as being not what the act accomplishes but the want behind the act (Moral Problems M Palmer). However we may ask what on the nose is the a honorable motive to ease up? Kant simply states that a good gives only motive is to act for the stake of affair. For an act to be universally, intrinsically good in itself, it must not be done because of its consequences, nor from self-interest, terror or as a means to an end, rather only because it is our nous employment to do it. We should always act for duties sake simply because it is the right thing to do.We subscribe to be very clear as to what this specifically entails. Kant is saying that we can buoy not do a moral act because of self-interest. This is understandable b ecause if we atomic number 18 doing it merely because we get something good out of it i.e. a reward or a good name then we are not doing it because we simply pick out it is the right thing to do. However we besides need to be aware that this also includes the idea that we can not do a moral act because it comes naturally to us. We cannot do it because we come down fun or enjoyment from doing something we know is right or because we will feel good about ourselves if we divine service other people.This is because we are doing it indirectly for self-pleasure and this a amplification is wrong, it does not include the presence of good will. Even if employment does coincides with what we naturally do, it does not make the act intrinsically good because we are doing it for another reason besides doing it because we know it is our work to do so. The event that we happen to be doing what duty prescribes is just luck. It is wrong because the moment anything that duty says we should do becomes something we no longer enjoy, we wont do it. We cannot be for casing honest as long as it pleases us to do so. Kant and so concludes that this will fails to be good will, just as if they had acted from self-interest.So far Kant has told us that a morally good person is a man of good will and that a man of good will is one that follows where his duty lies. This is done for the very reason that it is the right thing to do and we have a responsibility to do it. It does not come from self-interest, calculating consequences, looking at specific circumstances or from pleasure out of doing something for someone else. However we still need to know where our duty lies and what it is exactly that we are supposed to do to become man of good will who does what duty fore sort outs him to do.We can be sure however that because it is a deontological argument, that we have an absolute principle to follow that does not look at consequences of particular actions or changes in certain si tuations. It is absolute and definite and we can be sure that there are no exceptions to the rein. We also know that it has to be universably applicable to everyone irrespective of their situation (M Palmer Moral Problems). It therefore must contain something that all charitables have in common so we can all know where our duty lies in different situations and Kant believed that this was spring or rationality. He said that humans are rational beings, we are all capable of resolving problems using reason. We all have an naive intellectual power that we are born with which we can use to work out rationally where our duty lies.Kant believed that it was unacceptable to look at consequences of a particular action and then decide if we should do it or not because there is not enough evidence for us to make a proper decision from. Rather we need to look at the unfeigned experience of moral obligation and this is the feeling of what we think we ought to do. followers what our duty pr escribes involves the idea that what we feel we ought to do is what is right. We should all have a feeling of moral obligation we all know the good and right thing to do so therefore we should do it. Therefore our duty becomes to obey our rational thinking which prescribes what the morally correct thing we ought to do is.However, we still have not established what the supreme principle of morality is. This one rule that we all must follow as a means to our rational thinking is something which Kant calls the categorical overbearing. By imperative we mean something that tells us what actions would be good in the form of a command, commonly using the words I ought. A categorical imperative therefore is an act that is solely good in itself or intrinsically good. The act is done because of the very nature of the act itself and not to get to something else as a means to it. It is done only for its own sake and is tolerant from ulterior beneficial motives.On the other hand we have sib ylline imperatives as an opposition. These acts are done because of a desire to achieve something else. For example if I exercise to a greater extent I will become fitter. It tells us what acts are good as a means to something else. Palmer uses the example of corpulent the truth to illustrate the difference between the two. A categorical imperative would be tell the truth because it is good in itself and always is the right thing to do. The hypothetical imperative would be if you want to be trusted, tell the truth because we are gaining something for ourselves by doing the right thing i.e. we are trusted. erstwhile we know the distinctive feature of the principle of morality, we can analyse it more deeply so we can specifically know exactly what it is that defines a moral act as being good. Kant said that a morally good act had intrinsic value. This is where something is good and valuable in itself. The very nature of them makes them valuable regardless of anything else. For examp le Kant believed that Humans were of intrinsic value and therefore should be treated as an end in themselves.The opposite to this is therefore is instrumental valuable which is when something is good only because of what it can achieve and therefore is treated as a means to an end. Kant said this is not how we should treat other humans i.e. to use them to gain something for ourselves. He is saying that all humans should be treated equally and the same, we should treat everyone as we would treat ourselves. So for example, racism would always be wrong in the eyes of Kant. This links to the Christian idea of the well-disposed rule to love thy neighbour as thyself which Jesus, the ultimate example of human goodness, instructed his people to follow.The final and key feature that Kant placed emphasis on when concerning the categorical imperative was the acts ability to be universalisable. A key plagiarize he used was I ought never to act in such a way that I can also will that my mot to should become a universal law. By this he is implying a method we can use to see exactly what laws are good because they have moral worth. Kant stated that if the law can be applied to everyone in the world without being contradicted then it is good. For example we can universalise the saw do not murder to all of order regardless of any situation without there being contradictions.By contradiction, Kant means one of two things, Contradiction in the Will or Nature. If we cannot universalise an act because of either one of these contradictions then we must conclude that it is morally wrong.By contradiction in the law of nature, Kant is referring to rules that cannot be applied because they are straightforwardly self contradictory (M Palmer Moral Problems). The maxim or rule can not be applied universally because it contradicts the laws of nature means it physically is impossible to do. For example the maxim never speak until you are spoken to first is not possible to keep bec ause if everyone applied it then no one would talk at all because we would always be waiting to be spoken to. From this we can see that interest this maxim would not be the good thing to do.The Contradiction in the will is not when something contridicts itself, rather a maxim that the person involved could not possibly want to see universalised (Palmer). We may find that if it was applied universally we could be in the situation where we would not want everyone to apply it because it would help us if they didnt. For example the maxim do not give funds to the poor because we may find ourselves one day, through no displacement of our own, poor and homeless and then we would want people to give cash to us to help us survive.Kant gave one simple rule to following universalisabiltiy and this was Act only on a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be a universal law. With this he prescribed a formula which we can all follow to see if a maxim is universalisable. Be fore acting we have to ask what rule we would be following if we carried out this act and this is the maxim. then we are to ask ourselves if it was possible and would we would be willing for it to be followed by everyone at all times in all places. If it cannot then it is a contradiction in either the law of nature or in the will. Then quite simply, if it can be universalised do it, if not then dont.In conclusion we can see that to follow Kants deontological ethics we must act solely in accordance to duty and for the sake of duty only (Palmer Moral Problems). It has been a very popular theory, which some people follow, sometimes without being aware of it. However we do need to ask is it of practical use in out lives today? push aside we honestly say that it is useful, practical and realistic when making moral decisions? In my next section I shall be looking at these questions in a little more depth to see if we can logically come up with an answer.