The Unique Categorical Imperative of Kant Essay Example for Free

The Unique Categorical Imperative of Kant analyseMorality appears to us as a concrete term which is underscored by certain rational assumptions some the universe. And yet, our own experience tells us that that which genius considers to be vice may, to another, be seen as virtue. The reverse may also apply. Thus, it is rather difficult to reconcile that which does in fact define our cause for moral behavior, though all figures of importance to the historical discourse on philosophy bugger off ventured a framework.The 18th ampere-second in protrudeicular would witness a flurry of activity, with the latter generation of the Enlightenment Era providing a spirited exchange across decades of literature on that which inspires moral behavior. In our investigation here of the miscellaneous possible lenses through which to understand holiness, consideration of Ger man theologian Immanuel Kants 1785 Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals provides elemental understanding for the discussion of morality from the normative perspective.Such is to say that Kants will be the close rigid, well-disposedly constrained and dangerous of understandings, but nonetheless, totally unique in its penchant and provisions for its cadence and place. At the center of Kants argument is the premise that the same reason which applies to the empirical nature of scientific discourse must rationally apply in the same counseling to ethical discourse. His perspective toward scientific certainty would mark a unique and original bridging of worlds between the corporeal and the ideological.Accordingly, Kant contends that physics will have its empirical part, but it will also have a rational one and likewise moral philosophy although here the empirical part might be called specifically practical anthropology, while the rational part might properly be called morals. (Kant, 20) To Kant, previous capricels on ethical impropriety atomic number 18 threatening to amicable order, repr esenting the opportunity for the individual to devise his own ethical parameters.The rationality of scientific practicality denotes, to Kant, instead a heteronomous orientation whereby there is a connective tissue of ethicality common to all men and women, restraining and directing behaviors. Kant defines autonomy as the ability to act based on ones own volition. Heteronomy, on the other hand, is a common set of social forces inclining individuals to tend toward common motives and common actions. Accordingly, Kant lays out a crisp framework for justice, admonishing that the categorical imperative, which declares the action to be objectively necessary without referring to any end in view.. . . holds as an apodictic practical principle. (Kant, p. 18) The categorical imperative to which Kant refers is foundational to the normative system suggesting that there is some unvarying force associated with our conception and actualization of the idea of good or evil. It inclines us to und erstanding that the means by which we behave are inherently informed by our commitment to a single, shared and unchanging idea about what is right.To commit to this idea is practical reason and to fail to make this commitment is irrational, which allows Kant to propose that much(prenominal) a positive correlation could be observed between rationality and morality. . This contrasts the idea of utilitarianism, which proposes that all situations supplicate a certain degree of pragmatism with respect to behavior. This throws into chaos the moral presuppositions of Kant, with such thinkers as Bentham and mill around coming to the fore of the discussion. In utilitarian philosophy, it is imperative that morality be channeled through an understanding of mount and the nuances of society human interaction.By contrast to this view of morality, Kant provides deep ideological refusal for what he might make out is mere ethical laxity. Kant presents this argument that moral order is impossibl e to define without permanent standards that are do by mans dignity, denoting therefore that it is only reasonable to act in cooperation with this conception for ones own self-preservation. If Kants points are to be assimilated when adopting a moral stance which is consistent with mans dignity, such absolute terms are inevitably defined by dominant social structures, bringing us to the application of a normative theoretical structure.The inextricable relationship which theology and morality have shared throughout history tends to have a tangible impact on the way these hegemonic standards are defined. And Kant, rejects any flexibility outright, however. Beyond its deviation from his established disposition toward moral absolutes, such transition violates Kants maxim about man as an end rather than a means. Man is to be the motive for moral acts, with his dignity defining right and wrong.Indeed, as he pointedly phrases it, the laws of morality are laws according to which everything ought to happen they allow for conditions under which what ought to happen doesnt happen. (Kant, 1) To my view, this demonstrates Kants approach to be twain unrealistic and unattractive to the nuance and flexibility of human social systems and individual ideological orientations. Absent of these characteristics, ethicality becomes an modify term and morality a weapon against minority ideologies. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. 1785. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Jonathan Bennett.Preferred language flare English(U. S. ) A. Explain the originality uniqueness of Kants ethical theory by1)explaining kants general critcism of previous ethical theories 2)defining how kant distinguishes between autonomy heterononmy 3)explaining kants formulation of the catergorical imperative. 4)explaining how adherence to the categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice. B. Reflect on Kants ethical theory by1)supporting a position on how kants theory on ethical decision mak ing is make up or incorrect with personal thought. 2)supporting your position with evidence from the text