Kant Moral Ethics Essay Example for Free

Kant Moral Ethics EssayImmanuel Kants righteous theory plenty be best explained by comparing it to a math equation. Kants object lesson governance will always hold true no matter what the circumstance just like how ii plus two will always equal four. According to Kant, our lives should be lived according to dictums that can be willed into planetary law (Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 303). However the spellion regarding a moral decision is non judged by the consequences of that action, rather by the motive of that action. Kants the method of moral reasoning starts off by archetypical realizing the principle the perspicacious agent is acting under.To fully understand what this means, a rational agent is to be defined as an entity who is cap competent of making rational decisions regardless of their natural inclinations. This condition excludes such(prenominal) examples as, animals, infants, and plurality in a coma from being considered to be a rational agent because they do not show the capacity to reason. After realizing the principle the soulfulness is acting under, determine if the reason is mor aloney right. In order to determine if the maxim is ethical and able to be willed into universal law, it must pass cardinal canvass self-sufficiency, revere for humanity, and the farming of ends.Autonomy describes the feeling of accomplishment. This can be illustrated as a man who promises his wife that he will take off the weekend from golfing and file their tax reports. By holding his promise to his wife he not however feels the satisfaction from finishing their tax report save alike, more importantly feels good about conjoining through with his promise. Autonomy is important because if the husband breaks his promises and lives his demeanor as a promise breaker then this maxim is clearly self-defeating.The entire maxim of vivid to break promises does not pass the test of autonomy therefore could never be pa ssed as a universal law. However, if after passing the autonomy test, then a principle must also lever eitherone elses autonomy. In order to respect humanity, make decisions that show an overall c at one timern for rational agents. If by treating them as a rational agent, then the principle will not affect another persons ability rationalize. In order to do this, it is never acceptable to treat a rational being as alone a means (Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 307).That is to say, the act of rape treats the rational agent as a means to sexual gratification. The act of rape does not respect the agent as a rational being and could never be willed into a moral universal law. However if a principle was able to pass the first two conditions, then it is necessary to subject it to the kingdom of ends test. The kingdom of ends is composed of a group of rational agents all with diametric objectives in life. The importance of having different objectives in life insures that all perspectives and backgrounds invite been covered.These agents hand over been given the responsibility of creating a free society. A free society entails laws that every rational agent in that society would agree upon. If the principle is not a measure that the kingdom of ends would enact, then the principle, by Kants definition, is immoral. Let us analyze the principle of apathy. Living an apathetic life does thusly pass the test of autonomy and by showing indifference to other rational agents it also passes the test of humanity. However, apathy would not pass the kingdom of ends, as no rational being would accept such a maxim.As a result, an apathetic life could not be passed as universal law. As an example, we will refer back to the persecution of Jews during World War II. Say a man is hiding a Jew in his house and the Gestapo comes knocking on door. However, as the Gestapo questions the man of the whereabouts of the Jew, the man cannot lie and say that no one is hiding within his house, but at the same time, if he were to tell the truth he would be indirectly bringing harm upon himself and the Jew. The man should question the Gestapo about what they plan on doing to the Jew once they have located him.According to Kant, consequences have no relevance, although if all possible consequences were known, then it would be permissible to lightly take them into account. Since telling the truth by giving the Gestapo the whereabouts of the Jew would bring direct harm, it is permissible to lie. The maxim would be to never lie unless the truth results direct or indirect harm. This maxim respects autonomy and human nature and would be pass the kingdom of ends test and thus can be willed into universal moral law. Now take the case of hassle and Sally, according to Kantian moral reasoning, should Sally do Harry?If Sally were to seduce Harry by taking him back to her place and having sex with him, she would be utilize him as a means to her ends. By Sally using Harry simply as a means to achieve her ends, that moral decision is breaking a fundamental Kantian principle. utilise people as only a means is never acceptable. The difference between Sally seducing Harry into sex and Sally having consensual sex with Harry is the difference of put-on and obsession. According to Mappes, deception and coercion argon the methods for sexually using someone (Mappes, Sexual Morality, p. 166).The whole idea is based off the respect for an individual person to voluntarily make their own decisions. By deceiving someone, it is clearly misleading a person to make a decision that they would not have made, had it been on their own regard. However the objection can be made that Sally should do what ultimately brings her pleasure. Using Utilitarian morality, something that results in the greater pleasure, or avoidance of harm, of the populations involved is morally correct. Even though Harry is somewhat apprehensive of the whole cursory sex idea, he is not defiant or strongly against it.It can even be profound that Harry might even enjoy himself once him and Sally are having sex. And also, casual sex is suddenly okay if there is no lying, deceiving, or exploiting (Elliston, In Defense of Promiscuity, p. 170). I believe Ellistons definition of deceiving is different that Kants definition. Kant covers all and some(prenominal) type of deception as immoral. Elliston agrees that deception is indeed immoral, but his definition of deception would be a man telling a woman he does not have herpes virus when indeed he does. As long as sex is consensual, there is no harm.Sally would only be seducing Harry back to her house under, say, the premise to watch a movie, however when the actual act of intercourse happens, Harry is not being deceived at all. Even with the arguments above, Sally would ultimately be using Harry simply as a means to achieve her ends of sexual pleasure. By using Kantian morality, Sally should not pressure Harr y to going home with her nor should she try to seduce him. Kant reasons that human beings have been given this gift of free will to act as the dividing line between humans and animals. Animals are considered animals because they lack the ability to rationalize.What then, is the ultimate value and purpose of having a free will? If the point of having a free will was to seek pleasure and avoid harm, then we are nothing more than animals and have wasted this ability to reason. Instead, humans have free will so they could follow moral law. Therefore, follow moral law even in situations where social laws or natural inclinations could conflict. By following Kants moral reasoning, what we do in our lives is right not only because we ourselves believe it to be right but also since we have willed it to become universal law, it could not possibly be wrong.The maxims that we base our lives on are as such good because we are able to will it into universal law. Therefore, moral decisions made us ing Kants ideas can be applied universally. Kants ideas show respect for humanity and peoples decisions are not made for selfish pleasure desire reasons by treating people as a means, but rather they are made based on universal morals and by treating everybody as an rational agent. By following Kants moral reasoning a rational agent will be able to make the right decision when faced with any type of moral dilemma.