Deontology: Ethics and Kant Essay

In our world at once it is often hard to genuinely decide what in fact is pay off or wrong. The reason that it is so tough to determine is because of our human nature given every angiotensin converting enzyme has their own opinion. We do not all take the same or think the same work ons and consequences have the same effect. It is this reason we analyze situations with ethical theories, such as that of Kants deontology. Kants theory in its own right wing has a strong incorrupt foundation in which it seems to a lower placestandable to decide what is right or wrong. However it has its weakness as well. To me however, I view Kants theory on deontology offers a sound premise for which to determine what is morally right or wrong.Kants theory on deontology is a way of assessing unmatchables actions. Ones actions argon either right or wrong in themselves. To determine if actions are right or wrong we do not think at the outcome in deontology. Instead Kant wants us to look at the wa y sensation thinks when they are making choices. Kant believes that we have certain moral duties in regards to singles actions. It is our moral duty that motivates wizards to act. Theses actions are driven either by reason or the appetite for happiness. Since happiness is differs from person to person, it is conditional. Reason on the other hand is commonplace and dejection be utilize to all making it unconditional.In Kants theory on deontology, actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, which is based largely on reason. Kant says that it is in virtue of existence a rational being that we as humans have the capacity to be moral beings. alike that moral law amounts to unrivaleds duty. Kant says duty is grounded in a supreme rational regulation, thus it has the form of an imperative. To determine what actions one should take Kant utilized imperatives. Imperatives are a form of instructions that will guide an individual on what one should do. Kant had two classificatio ns between imperatives, hypothetical and unconditional. Hypothetical imperatives dissolve apply to one who aspires for a sought after outcome. These imperatives allow oneto take an action for the method of obtaining a certain outcome, meaning if one has a desired outcome, thence they ought to act. Kant has divided hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories, the imperatives of skill and imperatives of prudence.The imperatives of skill are imperatives that lead to an action in which the end result desired would be eachthing other than happiness. The imperatives of prudence are imperatives that lead one to actions, where the desired outcome is happiness. Kant believes that piety however is not like this. Morality does not tell one how to act in order to achieve a goal. Instead pietism is made up of categorical imperatives. Kant taught that morality is everyday, meaning it could be applied to all and moral law must be obeyed. He believed that when we act we are using moral l aw and act on the maxims, or the universal rules, of our actions. Kants categorical imperative states one can act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law. Kants uses categorical imperative eclipses one to take an action. Before one can act they must analyze the principle on which they are acting.Once they have determined why they are acting, it may no longer be ideal, then it is wrong for one to use that maxim as a basis for taking that action. Kants principle of morality is the categorical imperative. This means that as an imperative it is a command and being categorical the command has its whole worth with in itself. The categorical imperative doesnt have some proposed end as in a hypothetical situation, it has its own rational necessity in its justification. Kants principle of morality is essential to good will. This is a will that acts for the sake of duty. It is the only thing that is good without qualification. Thus a good will cannot be made better or worse by the result it produces. right(a) will is also the basis for a major part of Kants theory and that is the Universal equity decree, which is the basis in which Kant uses to determine whether or not things are morally right or wrong. This chemical formula states that one should act in such a way that your maxim could become a universal law of nature.That is if you took your belief or ideal and applied it to the entire world would it hold true and not contradict itself. Kants categorical imperative has two formulations included within it, one being the Formula of Universal Law and the other being the Formula of Humanity. The second formulation, The Formula of Humanity, is a principle under the Formula of Universal Law.Kants defines the Formula of Humanity as Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This formul ation states that ones actions are immoral if it is using a person as a means to an end. It also has to be understood that Kants ideals greatly fall on a field of agency, whether or not you are in fact the one willing an action that causes a prejudicial outcome even if you did so now the result of that action would do more good. Because you took action you are the agent that caused a negative outcome. The proposed better outcome has no value towards the morality of your action.Kants strengths in his theory are that they can be applied to nature as a whole, thus the universal law formula. His theory doesnt depend on an individuals virtues or character. His weakness is that his morality is based on ones personal action and doesnt take in to delineate the outlying consequences that could ultimately benefit from that action.With Kants theory I believe we can make a more sound argument as an approach to ethics. With Kant we have to take situations and become very proper(postnominal) with them. We focus on what the action is and universalize it. That way no matter where in the world it can apply to everyone and wont contradict itself. Then and only then we decided if it is morally right. Also Kants theory is good because it leave no grey area with its matter of agency. It doesnt let possibilities of better or worse consequences affect the morality of the action in question. Thus I believe in all Kant has a more promising approach for ethics.