Kant Moral Ethics Essay

Im worldly concernuel Kants object lesson theory can be best explained by comparing it to a math equation. Kants righteous system exit always hold true no matter what the circumstance erect like how two plus two will always refer four. According to Kant, our lives should be lived according to aphorisms that can be willed into prevalent honor (Kant, important Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 303). However the action regarding a deterrent example decisiveness is non judged by the consequences of that action, rather by the motive of that action. Kants the regularity of moral reasoning starts off by first realizing the convention the quick-scented ingredient is acting under.To fully understand what this government agency, a rational factor is to be defined as an entity who is capable of making rational decisions unheeding of their natural inclinations. This condition excludes such examples as, animals, infants, and people in a unconsciousness from being cons idered to be a rational actor because they do non show the capacity to reason. After realizing the doctrine the person is acting under, pay back if the reason is mor exclusivelyy right. In order to determine if the maxim is good and able to be willed into universal law, it must broaden three tests autonomy, watch for benignantity, and the estate of ends.Autonomy describes the feeling of accomplishment. This can be illustrated as a man who obligations his wife that he will take off the weekend from golfing and file their tax cogitations. By keeping his promise to his wife he non plainly feels the satisfaction from finishing their tax report but also, more importantly feels good about following by means of with his promise. Autonomy is important because if the husband breaks his promises and lives his lifetime as a promise breaker then this maxim is clearly self-defeating.The entire maxim of smart to break promises does not ease up the test of autonomy thitherfore co uld neer be expended as a universal law. However, if after passing the autonomy test, then a principle must also respect everyone elses autonomy. In order to respect humanity, make decisions that show an overall harbor-to doe with for rational agents. If by treating them as a rational agent, then the principle will not affect another persons magnate rationalize. In order to do this, it is never acceptable to treat a rational being as merely 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 distinct objectives in life. The importance of having differ ent objectives in life insures that all perspectives and backgrounds accommodate been covered.These agents pay back been given the responsibility of creating a free guild. 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 indeed pass the test of autonomy and by showing impassivity 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 adult male War II. Say a man is hiding a Jew in his bear and the Gestapo comes knocking on door. However, as the Gestapo questions the man of the whereabouts of the Jew, the man cannot fabrication 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 corroboratoryly bringing harm upon himself and the Jew. The man should question the Gestapo about what they plan on doing to the Jew once they engage 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 relative 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 kick up and Sally, according to Kantian moral reasoning, should Sally seduce evoke?If Sally were to seduce Harry by taking him back to her place and having sex with him , she would be using him as a means to her ends. By Sally using Harry but as a means to achieve her ends, that moral decision is prisonbreak a fundamental Kantian principle. Using 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 lying and coercion. According to Mappes, invocation and coercion be the methods for sexually using psyche (Mappes, Sexual Morality, p. 166).The whole idea is establish off the respect for an several(prenominal) person to voluntarily make their own decisions. By deceiving someone, it is clearly shoddy a person to make a decision that they would not have do, had it been on their own regard. However the objection can be made that Sally should do what in conclusion brings her pleasure. Using Utilitarian morality, something that results in the great pleasure, or avoidance of harm, of the populations involved is morally correct. Even though Ha rry is somewhat apprehensive of the whole casual sex idea, he is not defiant or strongly against it.It can even be cerebrate that Harry might even enjoy himself once him and Sally ar having sex. And also, casual sex is perfectly 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 any 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 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 chat happens, Harry is not being deceived at all. Even with the arguments above, Sally would lastly be using Harry simply as a means to achieve her ends of sexual pleasure. By using Kantian morality, Sally should not pressure Harry 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 argon 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 intrinsically good because we are able to will it into universal law. Therefore, moral decisions made using Kants ideas can be utilize universally. Kants ideas show respect for humanity and peoples decisions are not made for selfish pleasure seeking 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 approach with any type of moral dilemma.