Kants Moral Principles Essay -- Kant Immanuel Philosophy Morals Essay

Kants Moral PrinciplesIn the Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals, the author, Immanuel Kant, tries to form a paper by rejecting all ethical theories that are connected to consequences, and past rivet on our ethical motivations and attains. Kant wants to derive earnest char operationers out of contingently correctly actions. He believes that everything is contingent (everything rear have good or bad worth, depending on how it is used). So he is trying to find the supreme leash of ethics in all his suiting. Kant withal believes that an action is right or harm based solely on the reason by which it was arrangeed. However, a Utilitarian, bid John lallygag, would reject Kants reasoning of originating good characters out of actions alone, and kind of argue that if an action has bad consequences, then the action was clean-livingly wrong.Kant believes that an action has moral worth only if it is through with(p) out of respect for our moral code. He names this moral acti on a duty. Kant also believes that in determining the moral worth of an action, we need to look at the saw by which it was performed. So, we need to look at ones reason for doing an action to determine if it is a duty. If the reason for acting the action is justified, then the action is a duty. However, Kant says in that respect are two different types of reasons for playacting an action. Kant calls these reasons imperatives. The first reason for performing an action, the hypothetical imperative, is based on consequences and on our personal preferences. They are also contingent, meaning that they can be good or bad depending on how they are used. People choose to perform a given action because of the hypothetical imperative. The second reason for performing an action according to Kant is called the categorical imperative. These are not based on our preferences, dont deal with consequences of an action, and are derived a priori. They are all separate from hypothetical imperative s. We all have knowledge of categorical imperatives earlier experiencing them first. They are kind of a second nature for us, which needs to be recognized according to Kant. These are the most important reason for performing an action. These imperatives also have the characteristics that Kant needs in order to make his operate that all of our moral principals are categorical, have absolute authority, and are single-handed o... ...t hope to predict the outcome of any given situation. It is impossible there is no such thing as seeing the future. So by making a false promise to your friend, you have still done the morally wrong action, even though it will most belike save them some suffering. It did indeed take away their choices, so they cant act in a way they want to act (going to class). I happen to agree with Kants idea here. I appreciate that no matter what the consequences are, performing the right action is always the right thing to do. Overall I think that Kant has better arguments because they are direct at the individual, not at conjunction in whole. I also agree that the moral worth of actions is determined by the motivating principal of the action, not by the consequences, like John mill around. So I am a deontologist, for the most part. However, I also agree with some of the things that Mill has to say. So is there a way that we can combine the ideas of Mill and Kant together in order to form a perfect society in which everybody is happy? I dont know the answer to this question, but we should all strive to do so, and we should start by respecting individually others autonomy and treating others as ends.