1 PAGE IN 16 HOUR!!!
As opposed to Consequentialist theories of belief (Mill), Deontological (from the Greek acceptation assignment or obligation) belief focus not on the rightness or anger of consequences, but on the attributes of an activity intrinsically itself actuality appropriate or wrong.
Kant is apparently the greatest avant-garde philosopher aback it comes to moral theory. The foundation of his moral approach is reason, or rationality. If we appetite to ascertain moral truths about the world, we charge not attending to authority, utility, adoration or tradition. We as individuals all accept the accommodation to acumen our way to moral law.
Kant's argument that to act in the about appropriate way, one charge act from duty, begins with an altercation that the accomplished acceptable charge be acceptable after qualification. Things like amusement and intelligence are not acceptable in themselves after qualification. I could booty amusement in the adversity of alternative people, which is not good. I can use my intelligence to devise high-tech bombs that annihilate people, that is not good. For Kant, there is only one affair that can appropriately be alleged good, and that is the will or intention of the moral abettor - a will that is abreast by acumen and conforms to the moral law.
To follow one’s assignment in deontology is to attach to the moral law. What moral law is this? The absolute imperative, which in its aboriginal formulation states: I am never to act contrarily than so that I can additionally will that my adage should become a accepted law" (principle of universalization).
In simple terms, aback it comes to the aboriginal conception of the absolute imperative, aback I am about to accomplish an activity I charge footfall aback and ask myself “Can I rationally will than anybody in the apple accomplish this action?" (Ex. If I am about to acquaint a lie, alike if cogent that lie has acceptable consequences, I charge ask myself can I rationally will that everyone in the apple be accustomed to lie. Kant's acknowledgment is simple: No. It would abort the analysis of bucking in that if anybody in the apple lied, again there would be no assurance in the apple and no one would absolutely want to alive in a apple like that).
Even if an activity passes or fails the aboriginal conception of the absolute imperative, one charge still accede the 2nd Conception of the categorical imperative, which states "Act as to amusement altruism whether in your own actuality or that of any alternative as an end, never as a agency only" (the means-ends principle). Why? Because Kant thinks that every individual actuality is free, rational, free and equal. If we disrespect the address and built-in amount of animal beings, we are disrespecting animal attributes and that is unacceptable to Kant.
Perfect and amiss duties accord to absolute against academic imperatives. Kant’s three absolute duties are killing, lying and stealing. We are ABSOLUTELY apprenticed by assignment to never do these accomplishments because they breach the absolute imperative. All alternative accomplishments are considered academic (If I appetite added money, I charge go out and work; If I appetite to augment the poor, again I can advance at a soup kitchen). These are amiss duties.
1.) As against to absorption on consequences, what do you anticipate of Kant's emphasis on the attributes of accomplishments themselves to behest moral rightness/wrongness?
2.) Reflect on Kant’s angle of assignment as actuality axiological to ethical judgment. In alternative words, do you anticipate bodies accept the assignment or obligation to act in a assertive way alike if they do not feel like it? What is present in Deontology that is missing from advantage as a moral theory?
3.) Consider Kant’s examples on suicide and authoritative a apocryphal affiance that we discussed in class. Why do they breach the absolute imperative?
Order a unique copy of this paper