Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Research Paper:
There is a need to clearly point out that the two elements are never synonymous.
The process of perfecting our own natural state in the Kantian view implies that we are actually in the process of attempting to cultivate "the crude dispositions of [our] nature, by which the animal is first raised into the human being" (Kant 1996b).In order to achieve this, Kant suggests that one is required to effectively cultivate their capacities in various personal levels and be respectful to the end of one's existence. Therefore an individual has a choice as to which of their powers they can cultivate. This is because that is where the true end actually lies.
The moral perception therefore is made up of two main commands:
Be holy and Be perfect
The very first one 'be holy" is geared towards the description of the purity of an individual's moral self-perfection. It however demands that in an individual's way of duty, one must act not in conformity with the duty only but also from the duty itself.
The second one which is "be perfect" demands that one attain their moral end in regard to oneself. It is important to note that despite our efforts to attain such a level of perfection, we can never in essence achieve it in our lifetime (in Kantian view). The continual is as maintained by Kantians the best compliance that one can expect and hope for. There is however multiple means through which one can achieve or rather reach their end. The Kantian vie however maintains that some of these means are to a lesser extent aligned with the end that is to be achieved as compared to others. The Kantians therefore have a thought that amongst the various qualities that an individual adopts in an attempt to attain their aim of moral self-perfection, a few are lacking to a large extent in the context of virtue. This therefore means that the Kantians find it extremely necessary to come to a conclusion that the duty in itself is often clouded with elements of non-virtuous qualities that are geared towards the attainment of a virtuous end.
A contention exists as to the level of latitude that the Kantian view allows in their quest to achieve a moral self-perfection. There is a need to point out that most discussion is this domain are directed towards the Kantian vie of duty towards the more natural and immoral self perfection. In situations where moral perfection is concerned, there is a very good argument that the level of latitude involved is relatively low. The Kantian view therefore is that we can never omit our duty in order to perfect our morality. At the same time, the Kantian view maintains that there is less chance in terms of the level of moral self-perfection as compared to the natural perfection as there is for the process of achieving an end to an individual's moral self-perfection. The attainment of moral self perfection in this case involves the process of obeying the "be holy" as well as the "be perfect" commands. These commands are also more rigorous in comparison with the rather relaxed and open ended command that demand that beings should cultivate their talents. In the long run, what remains is the level of decision on what maxims do form part of the constitute self-perfection and what maxims miss out in the mix.
The Kantian view of morality is one of the most elaborate ones in the explanation of the thought and concept of ethical morality. In particular, it bears a lot of relevance in the explanation of the utilitarian theories. The moral principle or rather theory of utilitarianism makes an argument that any form of action should be effectively evaluated in regard to the level of well-being and happiness that is derived from the actions that it elicits. Therefore, the happier the people as a result of an action, the higher the moral value that is attributed the action that has caused the happiness. However, the Kantian view refutes this by arguing against it that the principle to a large extent devalues the persons that are it suppose to aid. This is because its application means that the individual's benefit would be considered merely as means of achieving the end. The Kantian argument therefore argues against other ethical theories since it views the achievement of an individual's happiness as well as satisfaction as being the ultimate goal (end) rather that utilizing the human logic in the quest of the universal moral law which is dictated largely by the voice of reason. It is important to note that the Kantian view makes a clear distinction between the concepts of an individual's autonomous and heteronymous will. Kant defined heteronymous will as the one that subjects a person to certain external rules. The autonomous will on the other hand is self-imposed but has a characteristic of being mutually shared as a result of everyone's shared (mutual) rational faculty. It is therefore evident that Kant's concept of will has a correlation with his categorical imperative idea.
The Kantian categorical imperative therefore implies that each and every being when making their moral decisions as a reaction to a certain action should be in a position to hold this action against a universal standard that is applicable to every other individual who is exposed to the same circumstances. Therefore an individual's adherence to the concept of categorical imperative provides ultimately, a chance for making an autonomous and yet ethical choice as it demand that an individual make a bold move of adopting a self-regulating decision that is purely based on their own reason and understanding.
Arnold, F (2002) Can a Philosophy of Race Afford to Abandon the Kantian Categorical Imperative?. Journal of Social Philosophy; Spring2002, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p17-32, 16p
Constance, P.(2007). Suicide Fails to Pass the Categorical Imperative. American Journal of Bioethics; Jun2007, Vol. 7 Issue 6, p51-53, 3p
Marcus, W.(2009). Right and Coercion: Can Kant's Conception of Right be Derived from his
Moral Theory? International Journal of Philosophical Studies; Feb2009, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p49-70, 22p
Mary, E and Christabel, L (2006). Categorical Imperatives: The Interaction of Latino and Racial
Identification. Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited); Dec2006 Supplement, Vol. 87, p1030-1052, 23p, 4 Charts
Kant, I (1964) Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Ed. Herbert J. Paton, New York:
Kant I (1996) Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. in: Gregor M (ed) the Cambridge
edition of the works of Immanuel Kant: practical philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kant I (1996b) the metaphysics of morals. in: Gregory (ed) the Cambridge edition…[continue]
"Kantian Categorical Imperative The Formula" (2010, November 20) Retrieved December 5, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kantian-categorical-imperative-the-formula-6584
"Kantian Categorical Imperative The Formula" 20 November 2010. Web.5 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kantian-categorical-imperative-the-formula-6584>
"Kantian Categorical Imperative The Formula", 20 November 2010, Accessed.5 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/kantian-categorical-imperative-the-formula-6584
Ethical Philosophies Ethics Utilitarianism, Kant's categorical imperative, virtue ethics, and Confucianism One of the most intuitive ethical philosophies is that of utilitarianism, an ethical ideal that suggests that ethical decisions should be made based upon what decisions will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When we weigh decisions based upon their costs and benefits, we are taking a kind of utilitarian approach to decision-making (Ethics 5: Utilitarianism, 2008).
The virtue ethics supporter would know that harming innocent animals and people is wrong and that that kind of behavior does not make a good world. Aristotle believed that the one of the biggest and most important aspects of virtue ethics was reasoning. If one is to take time to reason about the situation with the make-up company, she is to know that one cannot allow animals and people to
Ethical Egoism & Abortion Ethical egoism, as a philosophical position, holds that it is an ethical obligation for people to act in their own self-interest. How does this philosophical position deal with the debate over the morality of abortion? It is necessary, before beginning a closer analysis, to define our terms. Abortion is a hotly contested issue, but our sense of ethics here needs to be understood first as distinct from
However, the issue is more nuanced -- what if, as a humanitarian effort, a pharmaceutical company sold recently expired drugs at very low cost to an impoverished developing nation in the grips of an epidemic? What if a food company donated food that was safe but 'past its expiration date' to a famine-stricken nation? In this case, a utilitarian calculus would support such exchanges. The balance between the benefit of
" The question of death ceases to be a personal experience, a family experience, and becomes a societal decision. It suggests that the values that one inherits through the experience of dying and dearth are without merit, and do not serve to better humanity. It reduces the human body that holds life to a commodity, and the decision of whether or not the body's continued living is profitable to the bottom
This might or might not mean that a business owner would adhere to generally accepted laws and codes. I do not think that I would like to live in such a world, since contradictions might too easily arise. Instead, I would add an extra element to the categorical imperative suggested by Kant. De Waal's theory adds a dimension to Kant's categorical imperative. He claims that even animals have a culture
Admittedly, we do not know how it that anything (such as a physical universe) exists, let alone exactly how it came about that life came into existence. It is often suggested that there must be a God since it is impossible for anything to come into existence spontaneously through "self-creation" and equally impossible that anything existed forever in the past. Regardless of how elementary the very first particle of