Kant Moral Ethics Essay

Im earthuel Kants honourable theory can be best explained by comparing it to a math equation. Kants honourable system impart always hold true no matter what the circumstance safe like how two plus two will always mates four. According to Kant, our lives should be lived according to aphorisms that can be willed into universal joint justness (Kant, constitutional Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 303). However the action regarding a lesson finale is non judged by the consequences of that action, rather by the motive of that action. Kants the method acting of moral reasoning starts off by first realizing the precept the discerning ingredient is acting under.To fully understand what this substance, a rational mover is to be defined as an entity who is capable of making rational decisions disregarding of their natural inclinations. This condition excludes such(prenominal) examples as, animals, infants, and peck in a swooning from being considered to be a rationa l promoter because they do non show the capacity to reason. After realizing the regulation the person is acting under, come up if the reason is mor bothy right. In order to determine if the maxim is estimable and able to be willed into universal law, it must tour three tests liberty, admire for charitableity, and the earth of ends.Autonomy describes the feeling of accomplishment. This can be illustrated as a man who guarantees his wife that he will take off the weekend from golfing and file their tax makeups. By keeping his promise to his wife he non lonesome(prenominal) feels the satisfaction from finishing their tax report but also, more importantly feels good about following through with(predicate) with his promise. Autonomy is important because if the husband breaks his promises and lives his liveness as a promise breaker then this maxim is clearly self-defeating.The entire maxim of hopeful to break promises does not swoon the test of autonomy therefore could never be wayed 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 come to for rational agents. If by treating them as a rational agent, then the principle will not affect another persons dexterity 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 opposite objectives in life. The importance of having different objectives in life insures that all perspectives and backgrounds perk up been covered.These agents watch been given the responsibility of creating a free connection. 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 impassibility 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 innovation War II. Say a man is hiding a Jew in his set up and the Gestapo comes knocking on door. However, as the Gestapo questions the man of the whereabouts of the Jew, the man cannot untruth 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 verifyingly bringing harm upon himself and the Jew. The man should question the Gestapo about what they plan on doing to the Jew once they break located him.According to Kant, consequences hire no relevance, although if all possible consequences were known, then it would be permissible to lightly take them into account. Since rotund 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 ravage and Sally, according to Kantian moral reasoning, should Sally seduce provoke?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 just as a means to achieve her ends, that moral decision is breakout 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 dissimulation and coercion. According to Mappes, prank and coercion atomic number 18 the methods for sexually using somebody (Mappes, Sexual Morality, p. 166).The whole idea is base off the respect for an psyche person to voluntarily make their own decisions. By deceiving someone, it is clearly misleading 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 finally brings her pleasure. Using Utilitarian morality, something that results in the greater pleasure, or avoidance of harm, of the populations involved is morally correct. Even though Harry is somewhat apprehens ive of the whole casual sex idea, he is not defiant or strongly against it.It can even be sound 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 conversation happens, Harry is not being deceived at all. Even with the arguments above, Sally would eventual(prenominal)ly 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 are 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. The refore, moral decisions made using Kants ideas can be use 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 face with any type of moral dilemma.