KANT

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

Discuss Kant's argument that the only thing good without qualification is the good will.

Interest and goals and what makes one person happy does not necessarily make another happy. The desire of our own happiness cannot determine our will to do things. Our own happiness cannot be completely known. That we should not act with hypothetical imperatives (something that we follow if it serves our own desires). Happiness is not good without qualification. According to Kant, the only thing that is good without qualification is good will.

Kant also felt that we should act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, as an end and never a means. That every person is deserving of respect, no matter no matter what another person thinks of them. After reading these articles, it makes one think of how the morals of people have changed over the times. Many years ago it was difficult to try and define happiness and morals, it was not black and white than and in the complicated world we live in today its even blinker. When thinking about it and trying to define happiness it is like trying to define love, what is it. What makes us happy today does not necessarily make us happy the next time, what we love today we might not love it tomorrow. These are both terms that have no explanation that can hold true and no rules for people to follow to obtain, so we must reline on morals that we hope each individual have and our somewhat the same. And that is where the problem begins.

The morals of people over the years have changed dramatically, from the simplest of times to today's generation. Years ago it was all about family and what was right or wrong to achieve ones goals. As every generation passes on the next wants a little more for their children then what they had adding to the change in morals, values, and happiness.

What did Kant mean by “autonomy of the will?”

Kant debates that individuals are free only when they conform to the Categorical Imperative, and using the autonomy and arguments to make judgment about the moral principles that are universally valid. Kant believes that humans as rational beings are capable of reasoning and acting upon reason.

I agree with Kant that moral principles must be valid for all rational beings in all circumstances. In this sense the Categorical Imperative is really a groundbreaking effort to explicitly set forth a universal law of morality. So if we follow the Categorical Imperative, we would agree that human life is sacred and should be protected, and can never be used to as means to achieve other purposes (Abel, 2003).

According to Kant, what is it to act from duty?

With respect to Kant's given concept, an individual should act from duty which he or she sees as an activity of abject or pure ...