Kant
Kant's theory of morality seems to function as the most feasible in determining one's duty in a moral situation. The basis for his theory is perhaps the most noble of any-acting morally because doing so is morally right. His ideas, no matter how occasionally vague or overly rigid, work easily and efficiently in most situations. Some exceptions do exist, but the strength of those exceptions may be somewhat diminished by looking at the way the actual situations are presented and the way in which they are handled. But despite these exceptions, the process Kant describes of converting maxims to universal laws to test their moral permissibility serves, in general, as a useful guide to and system of ethics and morality. The Kantian Theory of Ethics hinges upon the concept of the Categorical Imperative, or the process of universalization. Kant describes taking a possible action, a maxim, and testing whether it is morally permissible for a person to act in that manner by seeing if it would be morally permissible for all people in all times to act in that same manner. Thus, Kant says an action is morally permissible in one instance if the action is universally permissible in all instances. In fact, parts of the theory even say that it is
If everyone used contraception, there would be no procreation. However, aside from the fact many consider the use of contraception to be, in fact, immoral, the original maxims in either case focus on a goal-either on not having a child or on making money. The stability of Kant's theory rests not only on the fact that it is completely objective-every action is definitely either morally permissible or not-but also on the fact that the theory is non-consequentiality. The universalization applicable in this situation relies on the assumption that not helping is definitely immoral, which may or may not necessarily be true (202). Curd raises two issues: using contraception during sexual intercourse and removing money from the bank to buy gold at a fixed price. So, although the morality of not helping when help has always been refused may in and of itself be open to moral debate, the universal would be immoral as it still harms people. Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each of them seems to stem from the thought that the theory cannot account for all actions and situations. The second criticism raised states that some maxims cannot be universalized, yet it does not seem morally wrong to act on them. Thus, it can be said that not helping is then not morally permissible. Kant thus seems to be more interested in doing what is morally right rather than deciding which actions are necessarily moral in and of them. In all these situations, though, it seems at least somewhat possible to lessen the objection by taking a closer look at the situation, perhaps by changing or reexamining the maxims behind it. However, Kant does speak of perfect and imperfect moral duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue. And perhaps this is the purpose of moral theory in the first place. Curd says then that the process of universalization fails, since using contraception or withdrawing money is not immoral (202). And again, the conditions presented do not affect the morality of the situation, but rather to whom the morality is applied, thus contradicting the idea of an objective, universal morality.
Common topics in this essay:
Categorical Imperative,
Categorical Imperative-that,
,
Kantian Ethics,
morally permissible,
Theory Ethics,
kant's theory,
process universalization,
moral duties,
categorical imperative,
imperative process universalization,
refuses help refuses,
action morally permissible,
universal morality,
permissible morality,
maxims universalized,
action morally,
categorical imperative process,
act manner,
morally permissible morality,
|
Acceptance Essays
