• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess Kant's philosophy: How successful do you find his approach?'

Extracts from this document...


Stacey Mottershaw 61/Wb 10th November 2003 'Identify and explore the central features of Kant's theory. How successful do you find his approach?' Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 and is known as being one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He is also one of the last philosophers to create an entire philosophical system that covers most of the major issues in ethics. In this essay I am going to be looking into Kant's Ethical Theory and the first and second formulation of his categorical imperative test. I am going to evaluate how successful they are in completing the aims they were originally given. Kant is a deontologist who only ascribes worth to the deontological approach and he does not administer his theory around consequences. This means that he believes all agents should perform their actions out of duty, with no other motivation and with no regard to the consequences of the action. Deontological theories differ over the basis or grounding of duty. For some, the duty is to God's will whereas to others (including Kant) the duty would be to the moral law, which is generated by the application of reason. ...read more.


Kant says that the supreme principle of morality is found in the categorical imperative. To help moral agents decide whether or not their personal policy statements are rational or not, Kant came up with the Categorical Imperative test. An imperative is something that helps us to decide something else - it is usually in the form of a command. A categorical imperative is a single command with no given condition (as opposed to a hypothetical imperative that always has a condition attached). Kant favours the categorical imperative because of his deontological approach that is not necessarily concerned with conditions or consequences. The categorical imperative test is used to test the rationality of a moral agents personal maxim. The aim of the categorical imperative test is to help moral agents to decide whether or not their personal policy statements are rational and if they can be put into the form of a command. If you can wish that your personal policy statement could become universalized in every situation then it passes the test and in Kant's perspective, it could be classified as moral law. ...read more.


Others would argue against Kant's theory does not work, as it does not allow other motives for action such as emotions. However, Kant would say that emotions ARE allowed but only when acting 'in line with duty' rather than purely 'out of duty'. He says that we cannot perform actions based on other motivations such as emotion due to the pure nature of them; emotions are naturally deceptive and extremely biased. Also, he would not give moral praise to an action that was motivated by an emotion as it was not done out of duty towards the moral law. The aim of the categorical test was to provide assistance to a moral agent in a moral dilemma. The test appears to have failed this in everyday situations and this is what undermines Kant's approach to ethics. Overall it seems that although Kant's theory is successful in itself, the way in which the test was formulated can be improved, as it is the test that is criticized the most and it is the test that has it's flaws. If Kant could come up with another test, better than both the first and second formulation of the categorical imperative then he would have a brilliant theory for which to test any personal maxim against. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Practical Questions section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Practical Questions essays

  1. Utilitarianism VS Kantian Deontological Ethics

    He says that consistency is an essential factor for rationality, and in order to be consistent, one must have maxims. Thus, in order to be rational one must have maxims. However, as with every philosophical theory, there are problem cases and criticisms of Kant's deontological ethics.

  2. Ethical Criticism of McDonalds

    However, the incident which has done the most damage to McDonald's ethical reputation was the 'McLibel' trial, where the company expected a quick conclusion to its action against activists who had distributed a pamphlet, What's Wrong with McDonald's?'.

  1. Kantian Ethics and Universal Maxims

    "Kant's understanding of universal maxims cannot be defended" Discuss. Kant's universal maxims can be defended in the way it sees people as equal, which is the main aim of every human regardless of colour, race, and religion.

  2. Evaluate Korsgaard's discussion of the Universalizability Argument. In what ways does she conform with ...

    moral law and recognizes both of them as elementary for normativity due to reflective endorsement. Moral law tells us that our maxims must qualify as laws for the Kingdom of Ends. By virtue of which it becomes a substantive command.

  1. Reason and Emotion

    It is the situation that causes the emotions. If a friend has done something terribly wrong and the right thing would be to turn him or her in you will have a moral dilemma. Reason would dictate the principle of utilitarianism, where the good of many outweigh the good of few.

  2. utilitarianism and kant

    It overcomes some difficulties encountered in act utilitarianism. However, it may still permit certain practices such as slavery that appear to be morally unacceptable, because minority interests are not protected. However, Deontology is an ethical system, which is very different to utilitarianism.

  1. Why is the distinction between Knowledge & Belief so important in Philosophy?

    We believed our senses but they were mistaken. Where rationalists differ is that they believe knowledge is derived from our reasoning and thoughts. In 1912, Bertram Russell (1872-1970) wrote Problems in Philosophy, in which he states 'is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?'

  2. In what sense (if any) was Machiavelli's approach to politics 'scientific' rather than 'moral'?

    In doing this he had patriotic motives. As an Italian he wanted his country to find peace and unity, so he looked at how states were formed and nations were built. His patriotic feelings demanded practical solutions, and this caused him to look at real-life political behaviour.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work