Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
So good will without any qualifications is making us do what we do. Kant would say that we should not let anything but reason's guidance propel our actions.
In the case of Ryan wanting to take her neighbor's flat-screen television because she can't afford one of her own a professor's salary is not acting in a moral way because Ryan obviously does not have an respect for her fellow human beings. She is not treating them with dignity, but rather she is feeling angry that she has something that she will never have. Making the excuse to take the television and give it to Big Brothers/Big Sisters is a way that Ryan is justifying her desire to steal the television.
The interesting thing about Ryan is that she believes because she is a professor who works long hours, gives lots of time to students and is a role model in the community, gives her time and money to retirement homes, gives...
Ryan's having to state everything that she does to make her a good, moral person does not make her a good, moral person.
Formulation #1: I ought to act in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.
In the case of a person who wants to borrow some money and he promises that he will pay it back even though he knows that he won't pay it back, there is a contradiction that arises if he wills it to become a universal law. If this were a universal law, that everyone borrow money promising to pay it back but knowing they won't, then everyone would know that the person had no intention of paying it back and so nobody would offer lend money in the first place. Kant believes that everyone would simply "laugh at all such expression as vain pretenses" (31).
Moral Worth Present, explain, and assess the thesis that only acts done from duty have moral worth In his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant addresses the issue of how people can determine the moral value of actions. His central claim is that only acts that are done out of duty can be considered to have any moral value. Implicit in this topic is the need to reconcile the intent
600). What Cushman means with this is that the self has become empty resulting from the loss of the community, tradition, and shared experience connected to specific cultures or communities (Cushman, 1990, p. 600). This empty self then needs emotional fulfillment, which individuals have sought in consuming products and ideas offered by the media and by shops. Indeed, the author claims that the current psychological phenomena of narcissism and
Moral Philosophy It is contemporary man's tendency to place himself atop of the evolutionary cycle of human development. Today's man with his technology and his gadgets believes that he is superior to his ancestors in many ways. Ancient philosophy and the mystery of its origins are still contemplated and studied in wide fashion today, but only by those who understand the timeless importance of truth and necessity. The purpose of this essay
2306 Kant. Consider situation: You ill life support. You a transplant organs continue living. Your parents decided biological child specifically organ transplant child / matures a level (assume part organ child survive) Kant's assumption on the present matter is reflected in the well-known maxim and law, "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." (Stanford, 2004)
If God Exists is Murder Immoral To assert that murder is immoral because God exists is to connect a number of dots, albeit logically, that nonetheless requires discussion in order to be properly understood. As Immanuel Kant points out, God is viewed by people as having attributes which determine the order upon which one should base his own actions. In other words, “the concept of God” has a “function” that man
Moral Objectivism to Moral Skepticism (a) According to Kant, what is the difference between "a posteriori" knowledge and "a priori" knowledge? What kind of knowledge would the statement "All triangles have three sides" be? What about the statement "The 44th U.S. President is African-American"? A posteriori knowledge is knowledge 'after the fact' or knowledge based upon experience, versus a priori knowledge, which is knowledge which can be based upon pure, deductive