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

Kantian Ethics and Universal Maxims

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain Kant's understanding of universal maxims. Immanuel Kant argued that morality is a matter of following absolute rules - rules that admit no exceptions and appeal not to religious considerations but to reason. Kant observed that the word 'ought' is often used non-morally for example, 'If you want to become a better artist, I ought to study this book.' We have a certain wish and, recognizing that a certain course of action would help us fulfil this wish, we follow this course of action. Kant called this the hypothetical imperative; telling us what we ought to do if we want to fulfil our wishes. In contrast, Kant observed that moral obligations do not depend on particular wishes or desires. The form of a moral obligation is not 'If you want something, you ought to do such-and-such,' Instead, moral requirements are categorical, that is, 'You ought to do such-and-such' regardless of your particular wishes and desires. Hypothetical 'oughts' are easy to understand - we merely choose the means necessary to achieve the ends we desire. They are possible because human beings have wishes and desires. Categorical 'oughts', however, are possible because we have reason - which is binding on rational agents simply because they are rational. ...read more.

Middle

Of course, many different but related rights exist besides this basic one; for example, the right to truth; the right of privacy; the right not to be injured; the right to what is agreed. Kant argued that the moral status of an action is not determined by its consequences. We are not morally obligated to seek the best overall outcome by out actions, but rather we are obligated to perform those actions that accord with our moral duty - the fundamental demand that we should treat others, and ourselves, in a manner consistent with human dignity and worth. This theory is a deontological theory, which is; what you do in your action and the nature of the action itself determines its moral status; rights and duties are justifiable regardless of consequential values. So rights and duties are 'fundamental', 'inalienable'. It is unlike utilitarianism, as Kant is not interested in the consequences of an action. Kant has many assumptions or reasoning..... * The universe is fair. * All human beings desire and seek happiness. * All human beings ought to be moral and do their duty. * The Summum Bonum (highest good) represents the combination of virtue and happiness. ...read more.

Conclusion

Anything could technically be universalised; hence the principle is exposed to a reduction ad absurdum. 'All men called Joe who are unemployed should rob a bank on Tuesday' is in theory universablisable, but clearly fails Kant's test in all other ways. Kantian ethics is harder to understand than other theories. It steals free will. It doesn't take consequences into account. Kant refuses to allow expectations places big restrictions in different situations. Universalisability generalises different but similar dilemmas. To compare Kantian ethics to utilitarianism; utilitarianism is a teleological approach, instead of a deontological approach. A teleological approach is what you achieve by your action determines the moral status of that action (consequences); justification for recognizing certain rights and duties is dependant upon their utility (usefulness) in achieving a maximization of value. If an act is right or wrong in utilitarianism it is dependant on the greatest good, for the greatest number being produced. It is a posterior argument which is based on evidence or experience. The ends justify means, it has the principle of utility, which is whether the greatest good for the greatest number can be 'argumented' or least good 'diminished'. Overall, Kant's understanding of Universal, maxims can be looked at positively or negatively. It confuses situations but also offer a good resource when making morale decisions. ...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

    Utilitarianism holds that in any given situation the 'right' act is that which produces the greatest good, while all other acts are wrong. However, it is not currently possible to quantify happiness, and it does not seem likely to be possible in the future.

  2. Essay on Law vs. Justice

    That simple adjustment greatly overstated income because expenditures for capital assets are spread over the life of the asset instead of being deducted 100% from income right away. Sure, future reported income would be substantially reduced in the long run, but WorldCom management figured that, in the long run, they would not be around and probably all dead.

  1. A Kantian would never allow abortion. Discuss.

    In this instance, if abortion was reworded slightly, it could potentially be allowed by a Kantian. In contrast, some people would argue that Kant never intended for his theory to be manipulated in this way to such a degree and consequentially would never allow abortion according to Kant's theory.

  2. Compare Utilitarianism With Kant's Theory of The Categorical Imperative And Explain Which You Think ...

    more pleasure from using the money in relation to the amount of pain the rich man will feel from losing it. The Categorical Imperative prevents this, such as with instances of lying, because for an action to be moral for one, it must be acceptable for all.

  1. `Always tell the truth and Always keep your promises' Kant's Categorical Imperative.

    profit, service to customers, reputation ..) there always results heteronomy' (Fundamental Principles, p.59. The phrases in brackets are ours not Kant's). I must feel free and unconstrained in the recognition of my duty to obey the moral law. If I feel obliged against my will to obey the law then I am not acting morally.

  2. Business Ethics

    The codes of ethics are issue for these reasons. However, rather than becoming a rule of law where offenders can be made to face legal action, the codes are meant to be a self-restraining or self-governing mechanisms. Provisions in the codes are meant to be guidelines that have to be

  1. Explain what Kant means by 'summum bonum'

    In other words, humans should carry out virtuous actions purely from a sense of duty, not because they expect a reward or because they are fearful of punishment if they do not do so. The only intrinsically good reason for moral action is the ?good will?.

  2. Utilitarianism ethics is the not the best approach to environmental ethics discuss

    Overall classic utilitarian�s see the small things that protect the environment (for example the reduction of carbon footprint) as ethically right as it will bring  generally more pleasure than pain, however in terms of the specific theories some may favour Rule over Act, as within Act each situation is taking

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