Deontology: Ethics and Kant Essay

In our orbit today it is often hard to au whereforetically decide what in f wreak is office on or wrong. The argue that it is so tough to determine is because of our human nature given every unrivaled has their own opinion. We do not all think the kindred or think the resembling exploitions and consequences energize the same effect. It is this reason we analyze situations with ethical theories, much(prenominal) as that of Kants deontology. Kants theory in its own right has a strong moral foundation in which it seems understandable to decide what is right or wrong. However it has its weakness as well. To me however, I believe Kants theory on deontology offers a sound premise for which to determine what is chastely right or wrong.Kants theory on deontology is a instruction of assessing mavins actions. Ones actions argon either right or wrong in themselves. To determine if actions are right or wrong we do not look at the outcome in deontology. Instead Kant wants us to loo k at the way sensation thinks when they are make choices. Kant believes that we have certain moral duties in regards to whizzs actions. It is our moral duty that motivates ones to act. Theses actions are driven either by reason or the desire for happiness. Since happiness is differs from person to person, it is conditional. Reason on the new(prenominal) hand is linguistic universal and move be use to all making it unconditional.In Kants theory on deontology, actions are either as such right or wrong, which is based largely on reason. Kant says that it is in honor of being a sage being that we as humans have the capacity to be moral beings. Also that moral legal philosophy amounts to ones duty. Kant says duty is grounded in a supreme rational article of faith, thus it has the form of an compulsory. 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 deuce classifications between imperatives, hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives nooky apply to one who aspires for a desired outcome. These imperatives allow oneto take an action for the order of obtaining a certain outcome, meaning if one has a desired outcome, hence 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 plump to an action in which the end result desired would be boththing different than happiness. The imperatives of prudence are imperatives that lead one to actions, where the desired outcome is happiness. Kant believes that pietism however is not like this. Morality does not tell one how to act in order to achieve a goal. Instead godliness is made up of categorical imperatives. Kant taught that morality is universal, meaning 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 can act solitary(prenominal) 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. Before one can act they must analyze the principle on which they are acting.Once they have hardened why they are acting, it may no longer be ideal, then it is wrong for one to use that maxim as a seat for taking that action. Kants principle of morality is the categorical imperative. This mover that as an imperative it is a command and being categorical the command has its alone worth with in itself. The categorical imperative doesnt have approximately proposed end as in a hypothetical situation, it has its own rational necessity in its justification. Kants principle of morality is essential to safe will. This is a will that acts for the sake of duty. It is the only th ing that is inviolable without qualification. indeed a good will cannot be made better or worse by the result it produces. Good will is also the radical for a major part of Kants theory and that is the Universal uprightness Formula, which is the basis in which Kant uses to determine whether or not things are chastely 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 crack true and not contradict itself. Kants categorical imperative has two formulations included within it, one being the Formula of Universal rightfulness 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 divvy up humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never si mply 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 also has to be understood that Kants ideals greatly fall on a matter of agency, whether or not you are in item the one willing an action that causes a negative outcome plane if you did so now the result of that action would do much 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 account the far consequences that could ultimately benefit from that action.With Kants theory I believe we can make a more sound argument as an barbel to ethics. With Kant we ha ve to take situations and become very specific 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.