Kants Humanity Formula Essay -- Kant Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Kants Humanity FormulaFew formulas in philosophy imbibe been so widely accepted and variously interpreted as Kants injunction to treat humanity as an end in itself(Hill, 38). Immanuel Kants views, as elucidated in his book, metrical unit of the Metaphysics of Morals, argon establish on the belief that people count by prohibiting work ons which exploit other individuals in order for self-prosperity or selfless ends. Ethics then, are confirmed by the dignity and worth of the rational agency of each person. Since human beings are the only rational beings capable of termination making and reasonable psyche, humanity moldiness be valued. Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an instrument. To understand how he defines this test, we must first take a look at the raiseation of his main principle, the Categorical Imperative. Kants way of determining honourableity of actions is quite diametrical from other philosophers, and m any find it passing hard to grasp or implausible. The central concept of his basic test for moral philosophy found in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical pressing. The representation of an objective lens principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative(Kant, 24). In other words, an imperative is something that a will ought or shall do because the will is obligated to act in a way in which conforms to moral law. Imperatives can also be referred to as the supreme principle of morality. agree to Kant, there are two types of imperatives hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives are actions that look for the best means to a goal, however, the goal might not necessarily be an end in itself. On the other hand, the categorical imperative is an objectively necessary means to an end in itself, and the action to obtain the end, must pick up moral worth. If we as rational agents, have any morality at all Kant says, it takes the form of rational, categorical imperatives (commands of reason) and is found a priori excluding all interests and desires. These commands of reason are proven by the Universal Law Formula, which when applied, is a method for determining the morality of actions. How is this formula applied though? Kantian philosophy is derived from the belief that ac... ...eir judgement wisely enough to know that lying would create better outcomes in many situations. This essentially, would be a utilitarians argument. Moral actions are ground on consequences ones which increase happiness or positive outcomes. Telling a lie to the murderer to send him wide would save a life, and consequently would be a moral action. Utilitarianism would take into account the future repercussions caused by the lie, but the analysis of an action still lies in the foreseen or predicted consequences rather than on the actions intrinsic moral value. M orality then, would be judged on a case by case basis. Kants perspective refutes this by saying morality loses its value as a universal quality. Although situations change, the basis for acting (morality) must stay the same and actions are moral or immoral, regardless of any ready consequences. Still, morality is based on constantly changing and often unpredictable outcomes. Kantian philosophy, even interpreted by Kant himself, is overly extreme and the strict applications programme of its principles is too stringent. Although there is no definite foundation to base morality on, the universal law formula is super implausible. Kants Humanity Formula Essay -- Kant Philosophy Philosophical EssaysKants Humanity FormulaFew formulas in philosophy have been so widely accepted and variously interpreted as Kants injunction to treat humanity as an end in itself(Hill, 38). Immanuel Kants views, as elucidated in his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, are based on t he belief that people count by prohibiting actions which exploit other individuals in order for self-prosperity or altruistic ends. Ethics then, are confirmed by the dignity and worth of the rational agency of each person. Since human beings are the only rational beings capable of decision making and reasonable judgement, humanity must be valued. Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an instrument. To understand how he defines this test, we must first take a look at the foundation of his main principle, the Categorical Imperative. Kants way of determining morality of actions is quite different from other philosophers, and many find it extremely hard to grasp or implausible. The central concept of his basic test for morality found in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the categorical imperative. The representation of an objective principle, insofar as it is necessitating for a will, is called a command (of reason), and the formula of the command is called an imperative(Kant, 24). In other words, an imperative is something that a will ought or shall do because the will is obligated to act in a way in which conforms to moral law. Imperatives can also be referred to as the supreme principle of morality.According to Kant, there are two types of imperatives hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives are actions that look for the best means to a goal, however, the goal might not necessarily be an end in itself. On the other hand, the categorical imperative is an objectively necessary means to an end in itself, and the action to obtain the end, must have moral worth. If we as rational agents, have any morality at all Kant says, it takes the form of rational, categorical imperatives (commands of reason) and is found a priori excluding all interests and desires. These commands of reason are proven by the Universal Law Formula, which when applied, is a method for determining the morality of actions. How is this formula applied though? Kantian philosophy is derived from the belief that ac... ...eir judgement wisely enough to know that lying would create better outcomes in many situations. This essentially, would be a Utilitarians argument. Moral actions are based on consequences ones which increase happiness or positive outcomes. Telling a lie to the murderer to send him astray would save a life, and consequently would be a moral action. Utilitarianism would take into account the future repercussions caused by the lie, but the analysis of an action still lies in the foreseen or predicted consequences rather than on the actions intrinsic moral value. Morality then, would be judged on a case by case basis. Kants perspective refutes this by saying morality loses its value as a universal quality. Although situations change, the basis for acting (morality) must stay the same and actions are moral or immoral, regardless of any immediate consequences. Still, morality is base d on constantly changing and often unpredictable outcomes. Kantian philosophy, even interpreted by Kant himself, is overly extreme and the strict application of its principles is too stringent. Although there is no definite foundation to base morality on, the universal law formula is highly implausible.