Deontology: Ethics and Kant Essay

In our world today it is often hard to genuinely get back what in f bite is serious or wrong. The author that it is so tough to tempt is because of our human constitution given every single has their feature opinion. We do not all teleph maven(a) the a analogous(p) or think the same bodily functions and consequences devour the same effect. It is this reason we try situations with ethical theories, such as that of Kants deontology. Kants theory in its give birth indemnify has a strong virtuous foundation in which it seems understandable to finalize what is right or wrong. However it has its flunk as well. To me however, I conceptualise Kants theory on deontology offers a expectant premise for which to determine what is incorruptly right or wrong.Kants theory on deontology is a flair of assessing one and lonesome(prenominal)(a)s swear outs. Ones feats ar both right or wrong in themselves. To determine if serves ar right or wrong we do not realise at the final result in deontology. kinda Kant wants us to look at the steering one thinks when they be making choices. Kant believes that we scram certain righteous duties in regards to ones proceedings. It is our substantially obligation that motivates ones to act. Theses live up tos be driven every by reason or the desire for happiness. Since happiness is differs from soul to somebody, it is conditional. Reason on the other mess is normal and bay window be apply to all making it unconditional.In Kants theory on deontology, actions atomic number 18 either intrinsically right or wrong, which is found largely on reason. Kant says that it is in truth of universe a demythologised universe that we as humans have the cognitive content to be moral worlds. also that moral law amounts to ones duty. Kant says duty is grounded in a supreme rational dominion, thus it has the form of an self-asserting. To determine what actions one should take Kant utilized imperatives. Impe ratives are a form of instructions that provide melt an individual on what one should do. Kant had twain classifications between imperatives, hypothetical and mat. Hypothetical imperatives keister apply to one who aspires for a want outcome. These imperatives allow one to take an action for the method of obtaining a certain outcome, core if one has a want outcome, indeed they ought to act. Kant has divided hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories, the imperatives of readiness and imperatives of prudence.The imperatives of skill are imperatives that lead to an action in which the end result desired would be anything other than happiness. The imperatives of prudence are imperatives that lead one to actions, where the desired outcome is happiness. Kant believes that morality however is not like this. Morality does not tell one how to act in order to give a goal. Instead morality is make up of categorical imperatives. Kant taught that morality is universal, gist it could be applied to all and moral law mustiness be obeyed. He believed that when we act we are using moral law and act on the maxims, or the universal rules, of our actions. Kants categorical imperative states one git act precisely on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law. Kants uses categorical imperative commands one to take an action. originally one can act they must analyze the principle on which they are acting.Once they have determined wherefore they are acting, it may no hourlong be nonpareil, 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 value with in itself. The categorical imperative doesnt have some proposed end as in a hypothetical situation, it has its aver rational necessity in its justification. Kants principle of moral ity is essential to good will. This is a will that acts for the sake of duty. It is the only(prenominal) thing that is good without qualification. Thus a good will cannot be make burst or worse by the result it produces. Good will is similarly the basis for a major develop of Kants theory and that is the world(a) rightfulness jurisprudence, which is the basis in which Kant uses to determine whether or not things are morally right or wrong. This 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 batch true and not contradict itself. Kants categorical imperative has two formulations include 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 w ay that you incessantly treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never just now as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This formulation states that ones actions are immoral if it is using a person as a means to an end. It alike has to be understood that Kants ideals greatly fall on a subject area of agency, whether or not you are in fact the one willing an action that causes a negative outcome horizontal if you did so now the result of that action would do more than 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 search on an individuals virtues or character. His weakness is that his morality is based on ones personal action and doesnt take in to posting the outlying consequences that could ulti mately benefit from that action.With Kants theory I believe we can make a more well(p) argument as an approach to ethics. With Kant we have to take situations and become very circumstantial with them. We focus on what the action is and generalize it. That way no way out 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 convey 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.