Deontology: Ethics and Kant Essay

In our argonna today it is often hard to genuinely decide what in situation is right or wrong. The causa that it is so tough to take root is beca implement of our kind character given every whizz has their own opinion. We do not all say the same or think the same acts and consequences have the same effect. It is this reason we analyze situations with ethical theories, such(prenominal) as that of Kants deontology. Kants surmise in its own right has a strong clean infrastructure in which it seems understandable to decide what is right or wrong. However it has its failing as well.To me however, I consider Kants supposition on deontology offers a sound premise for which to determine what is moralisticly right or wrong. Kants theory on deontology is a dash of assessing wizs actions. angiotensin-converting enzymes actions are either right or wrong in themselves. To determine if actions are right or wrong we do not timber at the outcome in deontology. Instead Kant wants us to look at the way one thinks when they are making choices. Kant believes that we have certain(prenominal) moral duties in regards to ones actions. It is our moral duty that motivates ones to act.Theses actions are driven either by reason or the desire for happiness. Since happiness is differs from psyche to person, it is conditional. Reason on the other hand is universal and go off be applied to all making it unconditional. In Kants theory on deontology, actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, which is establish largely on reason. Kant says that it is in virtue of being a thinking(prenominal) being that we as humans have the capacity to be moral beings. Also that moral integrity amounts to ones duty. Kant says duty is grounded in a supreme rational normal, thus it has the form of an imperative.To determine what actions one should take Kant utilized imperatives. Imperatives are a form of instructions that im bust guide an individual on what one should do. Kant had both classifications between imperatives, divinatory and matte. Hypothetical imperatives can apply to one who aspires for a desired outcome. These imperatives permit one to take an action for the method of obtaining a certain outcome, center if one has a desired outcome, then they ought to act. Kant has divided hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories, the imperatives of skill and imperatives of prudence.The imperatives of skill are imperatives that aim to an action in which the expiry bequeath desired would be anything other than happiness. The imperatives of prudence are imperatives that lead one to actions, where the desired outcome is happiness. Kant believes that ethics however is not handle this. Morality does not tell one how to act in army to achieve a goal. Instead morality is made up of categoric imperatives. Kant taught that morality is universal, meaning it could be applied to all and moral law must be obeyed. He believed that when we act we are using m oral law and act on the dictums, or the universal rules, of our actions.Kants savourless imperative states one can act only on that adage through which you can at the same time allow that it should convey universal law. Kants uses categorical imperative subordinations one to take an action. sooner one can act they must analyze the principle on which they are acting. Once they have determined why they are acting, it whitethorn no longer be sample, then it is wrong for one to use that maxim as a basis for taking that action. Kants principle of morality is the categorical imperative.This means that as an imperative it is a command and being categorical the command has its whole worth with in itself. The categorical imperative doesnt have some proposed end as in a hypothetical situation, it has its own rational necessity in its justification. Kants principle of morality is essential to good will. This is a will that acts for the involvement of duty. It is the only thing that is good without qualification. Thus a good will cannot be made better or worse by the issuing it produces.Good will is also the basis for a major part of Kants theory and that is the global Law radiation diagram, which is the basis in which Kant uses to determine whether or not things are virtuously right or wrong. This look states that one should act in such a way that your maxim could depart a universal law of nature. That is if you took your belief or ideal and applied it to the entire world would it hold true and not react itself. Kants categorical imperative has two formulations included within it, one being the Formula of Universal Law and the other being the Formula of Humanity.The second formulation, The Formula of Humanity, is a principle under the Formula of Universal Law. Kants defines the Formula of Humanity as Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. This formulation states that ones actions are immoral if it is using a person as a means to an end. It also has to be understand that Kants ideals greatly fall on a matter of agency, whether or not you are in fact the one willing an action that causes a negative outcome even if you did so now the result of that action would do more good.Because you took action you are the agent that caused a negative outcome. The proposed better outcome has no value towards the morality of your action. Kants strengths in his theory are that they can be applied to nature as a whole, thus the universal law formula. His theory doesnt depend on an individuals virtues or character. His weakness is that his morality is based on ones personal action and doesnt take in to account the outlying consequences that could ultimately benefit from that action.With Kants theory I believe we can make a more sound argument as an approach to ethics. With Kant we have to take situations and become ve ry specific with them. We focus on what the action is and universalize it. That way no matter where in the world it can apply to everyone and wont contradict itself. Then and only then we decided if it is morally right. Also Kants theory is good because it leave no greyness area with its matter of agency. It doesnt let possibilities of better or worse consequences affect the morality of the action in question. Thus I believe in all Kant has a more promising approach for ethics.