philosophy 1010

Classmate 1…….

The received view is that Kant’s moral philosophy is a deontological normative theory at least to this extent: it denies that right and wrong are in some way or other functions of goodness or badness. It denies, in other words, the central claim of teleological moral views. For instance, act consequentialism is one sort of teleological theory. It asserts that the right action is that action of all the alternatives available to the agent that has the best overall outcome. Here, the goodness of the outcome determines the rightness of an action. Another sort of teleological theory might focus instead on character traits. “Virtue ethics” asserts that a right action in any given circumstance is that action a virtuous person does or would perform in those circumstances. In this case, it is the goodness of the character of the person who does or would perform it that determines the rightness of an action. In both cases, as it were, the source or ground of rightness is goodness. And Kant’s own views have typically been classified as deontological precisely because they have seemed to reverse this priority and deny just what such theories assert. Rightness, on the standard reading of Kant, is not grounded in the value of outcomes or character.

Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a “good will”. While the phrases “he’s good hearted”, “she’s good natured” and “she means well” are common, “the good will” as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of these ordinary notions. The idea of a good will is closer to the idea of a “good person”, or, more archaically, a “person of good will”. This use of the term “will” early on in analyzing ordinary moral thought prefigures later and more technical discussions concerning the nature of rational agency. Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important commonsense touchstone to which Kant returns throughout his works. The basic idea, as Kant describes it in the Groundwork, is that what makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way “determined” by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who is committed only to make decisions that she holds to be morally worthy and who takes moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value, Kant thought. He believes we value it without limitation or qualification. 

Classmate 2 ……

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher whom took a different approach to moral ethics than previous philosophers. Kant a deontologist holds that is the duty that will determine the moral value of human actions. Deontologists like Kant believed that all people have moral duties that should be followed in all situations. This theory values and considers people’s actions over consequences. Kant realized the need for a universally binding system of ethical values that was beyond people’s personal inclinations. There was a need to establish laws that are based on a priori, meaning that law is based on how people should behave. According to Kant, we need to understand the human will, that we not only have to be told but we must choose to respond (Kant). There are two things in order for us to achieve our full potential that is to develop a clear understanding of moral laws. Theses apply at all times to all people, in all circumstances and developing the ‘good will’ of following these laws. He argues that what those call good including courage, power, riches, and even happiness are not intrinsically good and can become instruments of evil instead of good. When something is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional or out of sympathy but rather from a sense of duty. Kant is grounding his moral system to remove inclinations or feelings to determine a rational decision. According to Kant in order for us to strengthen good will need to distinguish two kinds of moral imperatives. These are divided into hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are based on desires and want, they are seen as a means to something else. In the form if I want something then I have to do something. However, categorical imperatives are different in that a maxim or moral law that command people to fulfill our moral obligations. “They prescribe ways of acting that all rational beings are morally required to follow” (Chaffee, 2016, page 465). Kant’s categorical imperatives he describes three formulations, the first being that we ask what action we do should apply at all times in all places. The second is that all rational people deserve to be treated respectfully. The third formulation is that people act only by maxims that support such a maxim as law. While it is important to have moral responsibilities toward others it is equally important that we as well have them towards ourselves. It is wrong to use people just as a means to get what we want, it goes against moral law. There are many whom argue Kant’s good will saying that we have to consider outcomes with regards to morality of an action. While we need to have moral responsibilities towards others, it is equally important to have moral responsibilities towards ourselves. But, sometimes we have to rely on our intuitions, our natural instincts and common sense. Kant wanted everyone to develop three things first for us to our full potential, be kind, considerate of others and third not distort what is considered right, wrong or acceptable.