Immanuel Kant †Metaphysics of Morals Essay

In his publication, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Im servicemanuel Kant supplies his readers with a dissertation that claims clean-livingity washbowl be derived from the teaching of the plane compulsory. The strongest argument to support his thesis is the difference amongst works in unison with responsibleness and performances in accordance from barter. To setup his thesis, Kant firstly base draws a distinction between empirical and a priori concepts. Empirical concepts be creative thinkers we reach from our experiences in the human race.On the other hand and in contrast, a priori concepts be approximations we reach as an end point of causaing prior to or apart from all experience of how things occur in the world. Kant then(prenominal) claims that moral transactions argon supposed done for the reason of morality whole. This go over of thought leads to the conclusion that an understanding of morality must be establish on a priori concepts of reas on. Truly moral ideas are then commonly valid if and only if they are based on a priori concepts.From this idea of a priori concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the nonion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified correct is the beneficial will, even if its efforts channel about a not necessarily good result. A good will is good because of the willing that is involved. Two main implications arise with this idea of the good will. The first implication is moral actions croupenot fix impure motivates. There are many impure motivations but Kant tends to focus chiefly on the motives of the pursuit of happiness and self-preservation.Second, moral actions cannot be based on the speculations of the prob up to(p) results. This action is not good in itself but good because it brought about a more desirable outcome. Thus, Kant arrives at the conclusion that for an action to be considered to have genuine moral worth its motive must be that of dutifulness to moral rectitu de. In Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant lays out three propositions about duty. The first is the will is a morally good action if it is done in accordance from duty, as opposed to an action done in accordance with duty.The second proposition is that actions are judged by the maxim or pattern that was the motivation behind the action. If someone undertakes an action with the only motivation world that of a sense of duty, they are following a valid a priori action. On the other hand if they decide to undertake an action in order to bring about a desired result, then their motivation is one that is beyond mere duty. Kants third proposition then explains that is not the respect for the power of the rightfulness but rather it is the moral motivation of an singular who acknowledges that the rightfulness is an self-asserting of reason that trumps our other interests.The will, as Kant describes, is of practical reason. A rational being is an individual who has the capaci ty to ply their behavior by the conceptions of laws. This discipline of action is also known as the will. Our fantasy that advises us on our action is known as an desperate or a command to act on a original motive. An imperative can be either divinatory or categorical. In the hypothetical imperative one acknowledges an action as right or necessary if it is a manner in which to obtain or reach out a certain(p) death.As such(prenominal)(prenominal) you would act on an action if a previous circumstance has taken place. These types of actions come from our previous experiences and counsel us to a management in which our desires can be achieved. Thus, an action cannot be held publicly valid at all times if its goal is to acquire some objective of desire under a certain set of conditions. If the goal is ultimately happiness, we are unable to set any universally hypothetical imperatives for happiness. This is because the definition of happiness differs from person to person.One m ans happiness can very well be another(prenominal) mans misery. As Kant explains, a binding moral law then cannot be equivalent or parallel to a hypothetical imperative. Pure reason comes from the ability to consider neither a motivating condition accompanying another nor its intended results. With that, we then need to recollect a principle with universal validity or a principle that is valid no matter what issue is being considered. A priori principles of reason are the only principles that chequer this standard on which a judgment or decision may be based.Hence, Immanuel Kant formulates that a moral imperative is one that is an unconditional or categorical imperative. A categorical imperative is our moral consciousness to do our duty because we ought to do our duty quite of pursuing our own desires attached to the duty. Such an imperative is driven by pure reason. Because we exclude our desires or maxims, we need only to focus on the form of our imperative. The form needs to b e universally applicable or valid for all rational beings to follow. Thus, Kant gives us only one categorical imperative and it is Actonly according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law (Kant pg. 38). This universal law of morality states that we should act in such a way that we could will the maxim of our action to become universally applicable. This should be used as the criterion to determine whether or not a maxim is morally valid. Before we are able to enforce a maxim to this categorical imperative, it is required that the maxim first, be fit to be a law of nature and second, is based on a notion that all actions have ends.The second pertains to the idea that men and women are ends in themselves. No maxim that does not impose or insinuate respect as a necessary accompaniment for men and women can be a moral law valid for everyone. Third, we must define every rational being as able to put forward universal laws. Last, the maxim requires the moral agent to act as a lawgiving atom of all persons. From these points, two important ideas arise. The ideas deal with the autonomy of the will and self-worth of the individual. Each person is essentially their own lawmaker, obeying the laws that they give themselves as a rational being.A person is not bound to a law by fear or hope of some reward, but freely bound to it by their lawgiving ability. This moral will is autonomous. Autonomy, which means self-law, is the only way Kant believes an individual to achieve the ultimate freedom. If an individual obeys laws from some other lawgiver, such as God and government, because of fear of punishment or hope of reward, he or she is not truly free. I feel the strongest objection to this thesis is Kant does not take enough consideration to human beings innate emotions.I believe his thesis weighs to heavily on mere reason alone without any emphasis on the emotional component of our morality. Kants light that morali ty is a chore neglects the fact that by performing actions from duty individuals can obtain a somewhat subtle take aim of individualised gratification from partaking in such acts that are not in the main gratifying to execute. I am not thoroughly convinced that if you are able to gain some happiness and reward from an action that is not generally alluring.The strengths of my personal view rely on the possibility of achieving a facial expression of reward by completing an obligation. I feel there is an richness of doing something with a smile on your face. If you are unhappy to perform a moral action it will to reveal outwardly or make apparent that your heart is elsewhere, thus, tainting the action. However, if you perform these tasks seeking a somewhat level of enjoyment others will notice that you truly care about what it is you are doing and perceive the action to be a notable one.The weakness is apparently that you will be more probable to use up and look to engage in mor e actions that will give you this appeal and instant gratification. This is not an ideal situation because placing a slight neglect to a duty or obligation that you might not find appeal in defeats the purpose of completing all of the obligations set for us to go by means of with. Kants thesis has strength in the fact that the universal law seems closely related to the golden rule, which is do on to others as you would have others do on to you. With a statement as such it is abysmally arduous to not perform a moral action.The weakness tranquillise lies in the fact Kant takes little to no consideration to humans natural emotions and feelings. Leading a moral life does not have to be a melancholy life, one in which you are bound to an ever-living amount of duties that you can seek no joy in. Whether or not Kant intended to make morality seem like torture, it appears it comes off in this manner. Kants overall view of morality appears near flawless. If there was a manner in which he could have incorporated a allowance account for some emotions, I feel his thesis is in actuality how each individual should lead his or her life. .