Kantian ethics Essay Example for Free

Kantian moral philosophy EssayKant argued for the use of a normative ethical theory based around the idea that alone men have a similar common goal his theory was absolute (meaning one must(prenominal) follow a common set of rules no matter the scenario) and deontological (focused on actions themselves rather than the outcome of verbalise actions). Kant advised the use of this theory despite it creation a priori, meaning he had no observations or experience of the theory in practice.Kant believed that all men have duties which they ought to fulfil, non to gain a coveted outcome or avoid a less desirable outcome, but simply because it is their duty. For example, if we can look at it is always wrong to kill people, it would be considered immoral to kill someone even if that action relieve the lives of hundreds of people. Similarly, if you consider a foetus to be alive then it would be immoral to terminate it no matter the affect it would have on the mothers physical or me ntal health. al close to everyone would find fault in the former, notably fewer for the latter, yet I would hope that the majority would free differ.David Gauthier suggested that as morality is an agreed concept, designed so that people cannot run amok doing as they satisfy with no consideration for others, an absolutist theory cannot function as rules ar subject to interpretation. Let us briefly consider the foetus example once more, if the rule states that it is immoral to take a life, what should be considered a life? Does life start at conception or at birth, or peradventure somewhere in between. For this condition, though an absolute theory should be applied to every situation, the rules do not necessarily mean the same thing for every single person.Kant said that in order to manufacture a duty one had to pass it through three tests, the first of which being the jurisprudence of record. This faithfulness states that in order for something to become a duty it must be c apable of being universalised, so everyone must be able to follow said duty ad infinitum. So, for example jump the get hold could not become a duty as if everyone jumped the queue there would be no queue to jump. Though this seems sensible, it is possible that immoral acts could be universalised. For example lie to people could be universalised even though it is a traditionally immoral act. Not only that but the rule could easily be manipulated by phrasing things differently, for instance everyone called Hector Benjamin Stellyes can jump the queue could be universalised as it would more or less likely only apply to me.To counteract these faults Kant put in place a second law, the law of wills. This stated that for something to become a duty it must be desirable for the population. This rule however, also has faults. In order for a rule to satisfy an entire population (and if this theory was applied worldwide that would be nearly 7.5 billion at the time of writing) it would have to be extremely broad, leaving it open to being interpreted in drastically different ways. If the rule said that one simply had to please the majority, what happens to those who disagree? As all duties are absolute and universal, one would have to do something they disagreed with in order to be moral citizens.Kant attempts to rebuttal this with his argument that all humans still have free will, even though they should follow their duty they dont have to humans remain autonomous. However, some would suggest that though humans are nearly always capable of independent thought, it is human nature to be moral. A psychological study by Yale in 2013 on a number of babies that were as of yet superior(predicate) by modern culture (they couldnt read, speak etc.) making them almost purely instinctual showed that it is human nature to be good. If society tells you that there are a set list of moral acts, most people will conform to these acts to the best of their ability.So far, we have a set of rules and how this set of rules are constructed, so now I ask why should whatsoeverone follow this philosophy? If we should not consider consequences when doing our duty, what reason do we have to do so? Kant believed there to be two separate reasons to perform any action the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative.