Immanuel Kant S Moral Theory Essay

Though Kant’s ethical theory makes many superb points about fairness and equality, the negatives of the theory outweigh the positives. Kant’s ethical theory would not be able to function in today’s society. His theory relies solely in always rewarding your ethical duty.

Which in turn would be difficult since when someone advised a sit or revealed emotion every thing would fall apart. Due to the fact that everyone wouldn’t trust anyone any more which wouldn’t end up well. Deontology is defined as the theory of duty. Kant’s moral theory can be categorized as a deontological theory, due to his belief that you have a meaning duty to satisfy (Kant 114). Kant believes that all people have intrinsic or perhaps inherent worth.

Which in simple terms show that we while human beings will be held to the next standard; to find out what is proper and incorrect (Kant 114). Kant claims that there are only two principles for an action to be morally right. Initially, you must have performed the actions out of the inspiration of good will.

Kant defines good will as “To act out of duty, out of a concern and respect for the moral law”(Kant 114). Good will plays a very important position on assessing the meaning worth of an action. Kant explains that you can’t only need good is going to for an action but also you must do the right thing. And so without great will you couldn’t determine virtually any action morally right.

The second principle would be that the action must conform to ethical law. If you follow those two Blezien several principles the results being good or perhaps bad is not your responsibility (Kant 113). Ethical law is universal and it is determined by specific imperatives. The application of categorical imperatives plays a large role in Kant’s overall moral theory.

The first categorical crucial formulation is usually ” Action only about that saying that you can is going to as a widespread law” (Kant 116). This categorical imperative applies to everybody and is targeted on your thought process before you act on a thing. You must ask yourself is what I’m about to take a step I can accept others carrying out on the standard? If you can’t approve of other folks committing a similar act after that your action wouldn’t pass the categorical imperative test. Kant’s second formula is ” Always handle humanity, whether in your own person or those of another, hardly ever simply as a method but often at the same time as an end” (Kant 117).

The second particular imperative is applicable to your individual personal and everyone different. This crucial focuses on how you will should always recognize everyone’s worth and lifestyle. There is hardly ever a time where you should use someone or let someone use you.

My first-time reading about Kant’s moral theory I think there were only weaknesses. After I spent more hours analyzing the theory, I found that we now have both strengths and weaknesses. A durability that I found was how Kant actually expressed that everyone is to be treated equally. Kant says that since all human beings are rational beings that individuals are all capable of improving others. This can be a strength because with everyone utilizing their moral obligation to treat each other equally points would be a whole lot easier.

Persons would not only consider themselves before acting on something but they would have to cause them to become Blezien several considering the meaning thing to do. If perhaps this notion of equality had been universal and followed by everybody; there would be a lot less violence, despression symptoms, and ethnicity tension. Which usually would keep everyone general satisfied seeing that everybody is definitely following the moral law.

A vital weakness I discovered in Kant’s moral theory is that he admits that there is a right and wrong for almost everything. This is a weakness mainly because; there are many good examples where applying good will certainly isn’t the best answer. One example is when I go through that Kant suggested that if a killer comes to your property; and asked where your friend should be to kill him you must tell the truth. That seems slightly extreme and I have to differ that would be the good thing to do.

Your emotions would sure be going crazy which usually already makes your solution morally incorrect according to Kant. He needs to find out where to draw the line and shouldn’t always be only on one side. In this paper I have described the fundamental principles of Kant’s moral theory. I’ve learned that without having a good will you can never become morally correct according to Kant.

His categorical imperatives show a lot of justness and equality, but when it is about down some thing simple just like lying to someone who would like to kill the friend in order to save your friends lifestyle you’re not really morally accurate. Overall, Kant’s moral theory was really interesting to study how philosophers thought back then. I actually wonder what Kant will think if perhaps he understood how much we let our emotions affect our decisions.