1ab kant s law edited

1
KANTIAN LAW AS A DETERMINANT OF MORALISM
Name of The Student
Professor’s Name
University Affiliation
Course Name
Course Code
Date
2
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
KANTIAN LAW AS A DETERMINANT OF MORALISM
Thoughtful and insightful philosopher Montaigne describes his life experiences with a rare intellect,
bluntness, humor, and brilliant insight. He doesn’t conceal his human fragility or shortcomings; in fact,
his witting speaks to the present world. “My thinking is swift and firm, and I’m not sure which I’ve had
more trouble controlling, my mind or body.” A portion of me “always wanders,” and I’ve never been
able to stop it.” (pp. 848-849). Because his writing is based entirely on his own life experiences, it’s
safe to say that he’s a writer who isn’t simply imagining things. Even in the face of adversity, such as
illness, old age, a dissatisfying marriage, or a lack of fulfillment in one’s career, it is necessary to
maintain one’s spiritual equilibrium to lead a fulfilling life. Montaigne concludes that we should all be
subordinated to the overriding rule of the independence and freedom of the individual and the
significance of social-intellectual interaction. “category imperative” instructions or moral principles
should be obeyed despite one’s wish for leniency in the face of adversity, Kant contends (Groundwork
for the Metaphysics of Morals on JSTOR, n.d.-a). Using category imperative law, a person may assess
their actions and arrive at moral judgments about their morality. This study is based on Kant’s thesis
that categorical imperatives may be applied to moral judgment.
FUL has enough bite to provide a specific moral guideline. FUL cannot produce maxims
(statements of one’s intention to act in a certain scenario); instead, it can only be used to govern. The
FUL reviews the maxims to see whether they may be accepted or not. Therefore, a provisional plan of
action would have to be drawn out in the face of the given scenario if one is to know what to do.
Following the development of a preliminary strategy, they will always turn to FUL to determine
whether it is legal to proceed with it. Only act on maxims that have a certain characteristic, as dictated
by FUL’s maxims(Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, n.d.-b)
3
FUL requires that when a maxim fails a test, it be ignored. So, if these maxims fail the test, FUL
tells the person not to act on them. This is a categorical imperative that all sensible beings must obey.
When compared to FUL, ID does not compel you to take action on all of the maxims that pass the
test.A maxim that passes the test and can be acted upon is required to be acted upon without any more
argument.
When the offered maxim passes the test, caution is unnecessary since there is nothing wrong
with following it. Also, it cannot be argued that acting on the maxim in issue is permitted since other
imperatives beyond FUL may exist and must be considered. The FUL is essential for permissibility but
insufficient for Kantian’s principle to be supported by autonomy.
FUL is categorically imperative in that it rationally favor the principle corresponding to the
maxima. This statement states that even if other principles are not derived from FUL, a maximum
passing FUL implies that those extra principles will likewise pass and are thus legal to act
upon(Stroud,B.(1979). FUL gives a test for the principle of reason that may be used to conclude in
certain circumstances since it reflects the essential moral premise of FUL. This is where reason and
morality meet, and it functions as a sorting mechanism for the two. If a person’s free will leads him or
her to do anything morally wrong, he or she will have to follow morals, for example.
“Kant asks us to consider the case where I attempt to borrow some money, promising to pay it
back, even though I know full well that I will be unableto keep such a promise. (The samebasic
example is discussed at two different places—G 4:402–3and 422—though only the second
discussionmakes explicit that the case involves money.) Kant supposes that mymaximhere tells me that
‘‘when I am in a tight (G 4:402)”. I pledge not to maintain acommitment if I make one at the spot,” the
foundations of the metaphysics of morals. The concept of believability is borrowed from the sentence
above. In terms of morality, FUL is quite concerned. The act of cheating or creating an exception for
oneself is what is meant by immorality. When a person tells a falsehood or promises something they
can’t keep, they’re playing by rules that they don’t believe in. On the contrary, what one wants is for
4
everyone else to play by one set of rules (moral laws) while they get to play by a separate set of rules
for themselves whilebehaving immorally.
This kind of action does not rationally mind the will of everyone acting the same similar to the
situation. One proposes a reason-giving principle to act on, but they can reasonably fave the act of
others as well. This is a blatant display of moral depravity. This demonstrates in practice why FUL is
necessary for both logic and morality. FUL’s moral prohibitions and permissibility are mutually
exclusive since every action that is prohibited under FUL are also morally prohibited. As a result, FUL
is not just a test but also a guiding concept (fundamental moral principle)
PART TWO
What constitutes rationality is the capacity to analyze our ideas and actions to see whether they are in
line with applicable norms or need to be changed in light of this examination. Animals, like humans,
have rational ideas and desires, and they always behave in ways that are suited to the situation. Some
people are good at achieving their goals and forming the right perceptions about the world around
them. Using this definition of intelligence is defined as the capacity to think and behave in a way that
points to the correct facts. Rational creatures with conscious capabilities can compare beliefs and
actions against the standards. When the relevant standard does not meet the requirement, individuals
can reject their beliefs and actions. No one is ever compelled to act on a desire they happen to have
when a conclusion drawn does not make sense or when acting on it would be improper under the
circumstances. For example, no one is ever forced to change their conduct because of what is
appropriate.
Humans are not entirely rational in that they might misapply their criteria and fail to understand
that certain wants are unreasonable. Or they may find themselves giving in to urges, even when they
know that acting on them in that context is illogical or unsuitable. Humans are imperfectly rational in
that they can articulate norms for evaluating beliefs and behaviors. We may change the standard itself.
5
It is worth considering if a standard used to assess a belief or action makes sense, is acceptable in the
circumstances, or whether the gain standard itself fulfills the applicable criteria for evaluating
standards. This information allows one to amend, reject or replace the standard. Rationality allows us to
not just reject, change, or embrace norms but also to evaluate our beliefs and behaviors. Individuals are
not obliged to accept or appeal to norms that do not make sense or are indefensible to them but are free
to choose their standards.
Humans are independent, according to Kant; hence any attempt at establishing an ethical basis
must fail. Autonomy, reason, and freedom are intertwined. To sign off on a stated norm of rationality
are to sign off on other reasons. It is also true that reason created the rules, which gives them legitimacy
and authority. Given reason’s autonomy, some implications arise about the norm that reason sets for
itself. When autonomy is acknowledged, one must accept some universal laws ( formulation of
categorical imperative)
In my opinion, whenever you’re contemplating a moral action, you must ask yourself if it might
be transformed into a universal law by you, the individual. For example, before making a false pledge,
Kant asks himself, “Should everyone in a difficult circumstance have to make a false promise?” Should
I ever consider telling a lie when faced with a difficult scenario and stating I will do something when I
know I won’t? That is not my opinion, and I believe it is not the opinion of Kant either. With regard to
the example of his lying, he goes on to claim that the law would be overturned if his maxim were made
universal law. Kant’s philosophy is so convoluted that I’m not even sure where I could come up with a
more appropriate illustration for this false promises maxim. Does it matter whether or not we declare
something is morally acceptable when we do so in terms of its universality? I think Kant poses a good
question.
There is also a discussion of Kant’s categorical imperative: “So behave so as to see mankind as
a goal with its entire means in every circumstance, never as a means simply.” At first glance, the
“Golden Rule” of treating people the way you want to be treated appears to represent this imperative,
6
but Kant’s analysis goes far deeper than that. On top of that, it’s important to remember that “humanity
is an end in itself,” and therefore, our actions should reflect it. Second, because we have responsibilities
and duties to one another, we should never utilize another person to further our own interests. When
people act, they must do so in a way that is respectful of humankind. Last but not least, we should
never take away from someone else’s joy because pleasure is the ultimate goal for all beings. Kant’s
categorical imperative is based on these four thoughts. Individuals should be able to discern how they
can and cannot help others, even if it is not what Kant intended, but that is the message I feel he got
across in these four views.
When I want to act, I want to act for a cause so that my actions make sense in a specific
situation. A rule or principle supports each action. The underlying rule is only implicit when made
explicit. Rules are seldom created, but we behave as if they were. Our autonomy must be taken into
consideration if we have a solid ethical basis. Kant’s universal law formula is a first-person intention
statement in this scenario. Implicit principle of maxims This means that one can only act on those
maxims where universal law allows it.
In conclusion, when we assume that one person’s response is completely unrelated to another
person’s reaction, it is because we believe that there are significant distinctions in their respective
situations. These facts would be considered relevant reasoning while establishing this principle. You
might also use the example of me believing that I should eat, but the person next to me should not,
since I feel that hungry individuals should eat after realizing they aren’t hungry. Despite the initial
contrary in the statement, the underlying principle is universal. Anyone with a similar situation will
have similar reasoning at any point on the earth. If this is now the case, I can actually sign that this is a
universal law in a relevant sense.
7
REFERENCES
McCormick,M.(2001).ImmanuelKant:Metaphysics.https://philpapers.org/rec/MCCIK
Schneewind, J. B., Baron, M., & Kagan, S. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals
(A. W. Wood, Ed.). Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1njjwt
Stroud, B. (1979). Inference, belief, and understanding. Mind, 88(350), 179-196.
The groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals on JSTOR. (n.d.-a). Retrieved 1 April 2022, from
.https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1njjwt?turn_away=true
…