Kant's System to Test Lying
In "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals", Immanuel Kant develops his thesis that claims morality can be derived from the principle of the categorical imperative. The strongest argument to support his thesis is the difference between actions in accordance with duty, and actions in accordance from duty. To setup his thesis, Kant first draws a distinction between empirical and "a priori" concepts. Empirical concepts are ideas we reach from our experiences in the world. In contrast, "a priori" concepts are ideas we reach prior to, or apart from any experience of how things occur in the world. Kant claims that moral actions must be based on "a priori" concepts of reason, and that they are universally valid, only if they are based on "a priori" concepts. He develops a philosophical system based exclusively on reason. "Reason's function is to bring a will that is good in itself, as opposed to good for some particular purpose."(SparkNotes.com) Kant presents three propositions about duty. First, is the will that is a morally good action if it is done in accordance from duty. Second, is that actions are judged by the "maxim" or principle that was the motivation behind the action. Third, explains that
According to Herman, Kant's basis for this was to make absolutely certain that people were acting only out of the consideration of morality, because that was the only motive one felt compelled to (or a duty to) do. Human nature is inclined to act out of a sense of duty, which is the assumption that it is the proper means to an end. He didn't trust emotions, because he believed that they were too ever changing to be relied upon. If a lie preserves a human life, or even if its attempt to achieve this desirable end is unsuccessful, how can it be realistically regarded as contrary to one's moral duty? Kant's categorical imperative appears unable to provide an undisputed answer to that question. If this act is the result of the good will of the person who performs it, which is also universal, according to Kantian philosophy, it cannot be in violation of the first formulation, and neither a violation of the second formulation because one's action must be a means to its end, and unless it is morally required, its end must be consistent with its happiness. Therefore, if lying is contrary to duty, as defined by Kant, it can't be an example of an act of good will. Second formulation was described as respect for persons. Herman wrote, "The class of actions that follow from the inclination to help others is not a subset of the class of right or dutiful actions" ("On the Value of Acting from the Motive of Duty" page. Barbara Herman, a contemporary philosopher, discussed in her article "On the Value of Acting from the Motive of Duty," the only act, which can qualify as being morally good, is one that is motivated by a sense of duty. But the major problem with much of his philosophy is that it is too abstract. But no one has a right to a truth that harms others" (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, page 64). Lying in certain instances might be wrong, but Kant does not conclusively prove that it is always wrong.
Common topics in this essay:
Metaphysics Morals,
Motive Duty,
Immanuel Kant,
Herman Kant's,
categorical imperative,
Barbara Herman,
priori concepts,
metaphysics morals,
grounding metaphysics morals,
grounding metaphysics,
accordance duty,
Grounding Metaphysics,
Value Acting,
Acting Motive,
lying instances wrong,
actions accordance,
kant's categorical,
duty actions,
actions accordance duty,
instances wrong,
based priori,
accordance duty actions,
based priori concepts,
|
Acceptance Essays
