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.
Since a hypothetical imperative represents one of many possibilities that are only means to an end, they cannot be objectively necessary, and therefore do not have the same command over human behavior as a categorical imperative. As Kant notes, commands are laws that we must obey, even when they contradict our inclinations (27).
(b)
If we treat others as a means to an end, then we use them in service of another goal. However, if we treat others as an end in themselves, then we respect them without regard to any other goals or ends. To treat someone as a means to an end is to make them less important than some end result, whereas to treat someone as an end in themselves makes them the final and most important consideration. Slavery may be the most offensive example of using others as a means to an end, but there are many more benign examples. For instance, when...
When we treat another person as a means to an end, we do not prioritize their happiness or consider their purposes because we regard them merely as a tool to get something else. In the case of the car mechanic, it is possible to consider his happiness and behave according to the moral duty to consider him as an end in himself, regardless of whether the car is fixed or not. As for slavery, however, this moral duty is not…
Kant's universal principle of right and categorical imperative has yielded a heated debate on whether there is relationship between the two (UPR and CI). The debate arises on the question, "Can Kant's "universal principle of right" be derived from his "categorical imperative?" Many authors have presented their view, against and supporting. This debate is significant since it helps in realizing the impact of the juridical law on the individuals in
Rousseau offers a mix of philosophical notions of liberty with advice and opinions on how to structure a government that promotes equality and liberty, but not excessively so, that the will of the majority or strong overcomes the will or the rights of the minority. as, unlike the founders of America, Rousseau was not concerned with a real, live, specific historical situation he could to some extent afford to be
The Bible also calls for the application of human free will to morality, as does Kant. Stories in the Bible reveal how human actors either obey or disobey the moral codes prescribed to them by the Biblical authorities, namely God. When God issues a "thou shalt," that moral law is ensconced. The person has free will, and therefore can be tricked by a malicious force symbolized by Satan. It is
Ross thought that all people should be benevolent and so if lying affects one's benevolence, one needs to decide if lying is better for the sake of benevolence. Ross' non-absolutist take to ethics is preferred because is considers what is morally right in certain situations. In the instance of a Poker game, it is a game that relies upon lying or "bluffing" so it actually does pass Kant's universal law
Living authentically "as if" my actions had the force of reason strikes me as very similar to living in deliberate opposition to reason -- which, in a contemporary milieu, often entails structuring a life according to personal experience or even faith. In an era in which the irrational is widely accepted and even embraced -- through the thought of Freud, Kierkegaard, and others in addition to Nietzsche himself --
If Kant's points are to be assimilated when adopting a moral stance which is consistent with man's dignity, such absolute terms are inevitably defined by dominant social structures, bringing us to the application of a normative theoretical structure. The inextricable relationship which theology and morality have shared throughout history tends to have a tangible impact on the way these hegemonic standards are defined. And Kant, rejects any flexibility outright, however.