It would seem that a major problem in the issue, as stated before, would be a diffuculty in differentiating between whether commands are considered IS's and OUGHT's, or whether the two are compatible. More so, is the Pleasurable equated with the Good and Practical? Is a society capable of feeling that the latter two are favorable to the first?
How do we differentiate between the attractiveness of either class of Imperative?
Are absolutes equal to ethical principles(can we use them similarly)?
Only the categorical imperitive is truly acceptable as a law of the will, and thus most likely the only one to be followed; does a categorical imperative constitute an internal absolute, or a principle, and can this absolute be used? what constitutes a Categorical Imperative?
Can we use morality as an imperative, if it is that?
(What can we trust as acceptable ethical material)?
It seems that Categorical Imperative - the ONE, that is - simply define a necessity to find something acceptable to base decisions upon, while it is also required that a deeplyanalyctical exam of each Imperative to decide whether it is acceptable or not. I am confused - it would seem that the one absolute is simply a rule concerning choice... not an imperative in itself.................
...... We are free to make the decisions that shape our world, and the imperatives and feelings and motes of conscience as well as the idylls of society and the CS2 are all viable approaches to society. Only a society where freedom in the form of anarchy-free ethics exists might perservere; the ability to choose is, in its self, is the factor that enables society to mesh finely.
A matter of integrity gifted by the ability to choose - factoring largely, perhaps, on the Golden Rule of equal treatment - might be pleasurable or attractive, enough, at least, to sway those who give aid where it is needed and do that which society might call right.
It is not so much a duty of the mind as a consent that it may feel attraction to ideas that possibly require more work than less empassioned paths;the one universal Categorical Imperative - as the only true of its kind to humanity - makes ethics possible through various methods.
It is demonstrated that the Golden Rule again contains the idealized methods of action in ethics; humanity and means exist, ethics define their properties.
Ethics can be shown as a method of differentiating between what is right and wrong through a further differentiation of integrity by pleasure or integrity by duty.
Now that it has been established that good can only exist in the good will, the problem is to figure out what exactly the good will is, and how it pertains to the categorical imperative (which also needs to be defined).
Kant points out that everything in nature pertains to laws; humans, being rational beings, are the only ones who can act according to the principles of the law- we have a will. It takes reasoning to go from the principle of the law to action. Now, back to the law- the law is objective, and when reasoning takes place, the law may be recognized as objectively necessary and subjectively necessary. It is when the objectiveness does not naturally coincide perfectly with the subjective part but is still expected that it is an obligation, or an imperative. Now, when the imperative in itself is good, not as a means to achieve good but is good, this is categorical. In order to determine this categorical imperative, one must realize that human beings, being rational, are ends in themselves, not a mere means to be used to achieve something else (just as oneself is not a means by which others may achieve something). Therefore, when considering a course of action, one must question if the action could be a universal (universal as in oneself could also be treated with it) law of humanity, and if it can, if they are able to will it to be so. This makes it impossible to treat the action just as a means, to one’s own inclination, to view it only for its effect, but instead as an end in itself. Now, it would be ideal that this would be so that everyone thought this way and you could trust others to consider their actions in this way. But one must act as if this were the case- one must act as a member in a kingdom of ends (unless one has no wants at all and is sovereign)- and this is where dignity lies, where duty springs forth. This is the good will.
Problem: In the article, Kant addresses the problem as people of the society basing their moral principles of right and wrong on culture. He believes that these morals should be based on reason, or good will. The society is judging morals on the motive that made the moral. No one or very few peoples' actions are based on true morals; actions are influenced by outside forces, desire, or self-interest. The moral principle of reasons (that which [I believe] Kant uses as an imperative) should be applied in all scenarios. The society today violates this possible imperative; they seem to create their own laws to fit their own self interest and try to make it the community standard. People who are truly moral seem to be looked down upon in the society, even though to create a civil society in the eyes of Kant, we must be like those people. Also, Kant believes that people in the society abuse their freedom. They use this freedom to make a standard out of their own self - interest.
Solution:We should act in such a way that we could want the maxim of our action to become a universal law. We have a concept of freedom of the will, and that morality must be based on this concept. The society must accept moral beings, not reject them.
The problem is that the moral law is part of the principles of practical reason, which has a series of imperatives such as: Hypothetical Imperatives (tells you what you ought to do, given that you will some end) and categorical Imperatives (tells you unconditionally what to do). Therefore, we have the tendency to have our will influenced by personal inclinations and it is not free in its capacity to reason.
A solution to this problem would be to act accordingly to the autonomy of the will, for such actions are acceptable and good. Therefore, a perfect will acts on these. On the other hand, an imperfect will is obligated to act in accordance with duty.
The author is trying to suggest that one of the main things fueling will is reason and when you don't reason things out before you make a decision it was more of an impulse and so you felt obligated to do it. For examples there are somethings that you ought to do which will undoubtedly lead you in the good path, however these rules are not obligatory. People have been trying to teach this for a while and so they associate this ought by associating this decision with happiness. However happiness is a dangerous area, and the author describes this by explaining the rational nature exists as an ends to itself. If someone were to commit suicide because they knew that they were going to commit evil acts then it was some what justified.
The solution is basically that the author explain that morality doesn't have an exception and we need to stop make these exceptions to benefit us. We should always be striving for the universal code or community standard.
The decision of actions made from one principles requires reason and will is just a practical reason. Will is the ability to choos what ONLY reason recognizes as good. And the problem is that people dont only use reason to guide them they have tendencies and other outside and personal things that influence on their reasoning and then their desicion, and once that happens then the actions become just an obligation not a definate action that one must take. So then the people that still choose to fufill their duties are awarded dignity from others when really he is just what he should do, being a subject to moral law. no tendencies, fear, personal or outside infulences of soceity can effect an action because then it will have no moral worth, you can only see an action for what it is "the law of it" Any rational human being can do that, thats all one has do do to have moral worth in their actions
Problem: What causes an individual to make the ethical decisions one makes??
Solution: According to Kant, perhaps the most important factor in making ethical decisions is one's will. Will in turn, is objectively affected by the catgorical imperative which is the voice of "ought". Another theory, according to Kant, that influences our ethical decisions is the idea that rational beings such as humans as ends (they cannot influence others or use others as means of obtaining something). This idea, known as the kingdom of ends, says that humans give universal laws but are also subject to them. Thus, the force that determines one's ethical decisions is his/her will, which is determined in part by the universal laws one is subject to due to the kingdom of ends principle.
The problem of the article is that the individual can become confused as to what their self interest is and in turn become hypocritical to themselves. By following their self interest, the individual can manipulate themselves, their imperative (Making it a hypothetical imperative) and others in a bad way.
Immanuel Kant proposes that one should use their rationality to make an honest decision as in doing so would make their choice follow their categorical imperative. They then would not manipulate anything incorrectly to suit what outcome the individual wishes to receive and avoid hypocrisy and also allow the ought of a hypothetical imperative to become an is of a categorical imperative.
The problem of the article is that all actions have a will which comes from practical reasoning and if reasoning isn’t enough, then motivation for will comes from obligation (law/imperative/command). Basically, this is known as the Imperative which acts as motivation to complete a necessary action. The imperative is used with the word ought, and separates good (means of conceptions of reason) from pleasant (means of sensation from subjective causes). The problem is that there are no actions that are done in a pure form, and that they are all contaminated by a motive behind them. So if every action has a reason behind it in order for it to be accomplished, then what classifies as duty? What exactly is motivating individuals to complete an obligation? And also, if obligation/command/imperative is subjective and depends on the individual, how do things get completed especially if actions are not always necessarily moral and depend on the situation the individual is in at the time? By clarifying the imperative, the categories of imperative are narrowed down to hypothetically (possible) and categorically (necessary). There are flaws within both, leading to the question of what exactly determines the morality of our actions.
In the problem, the categories of hypothetical and categorical imperatives were presented. As stated, there are flaws with both of them. The hypothetical depends on the situation the individual is in, not providing an ethical base of which to work off of and leaning more into individual feeling and thoughts at the moment. The categorical also is flawed because it is absolute and unforgiving, not realizing the impact of the circumstances the situation may hold. The solution presented within this article is the categorical imperative, something that is done for the sake of doing it, instead of doing it for an extrinsic reward at the end. By doing something for the sake of doing it, motivation will be provided and so will reasoning for doing it, thus benefitting the individual for the right reasons. Categorical and hypothetical reasoning can still be a part of the reasoning, but cannot be the sole factor of motivation in determining actions because they will not work.
1. The problem suggested in the article is that there are many imperatives that suggest a good ending, but do not actually call for one. These imperatives do not ensure a good ending and a universal law.
2. Perhaps the solution to the article is to have a categorical imperative, in which the ends do not contradict itself, can be made a universal moral code, and suggest and call for good ends. the absolutely good law can be reached by this: "Act on maxims which can at the same time have their object themselves as universal laws of nature."
The question of the article is that can an action done by duty achieve moral worth? And if what you believe to be right or the law that you live by can be made into a universal law. Firstly for the second question I think that it can be if the action in itself is good but if compared to something else is good or better than that action it is not enough since the other action may be terribly wrong but when compared to this action, what you believe to be right seems to be good. In that situation a maxim or what one believes to be right cannot become a universal law. As to the first question an action done by duty I think cannot reach moral worth since you were told what to do and in turn had no choice on what to do but when one has free will or has an immediate response to take action then the action may reach moral worth since you were confronted with different decisions wrong ones and right ones so if you choose the right one your script may reach a moral worth if of course the right choice was made.
Problem: The problem that is presented by Kant in this article is concerning how to do real good. He suggests that we may use imperatives, hypothetical and categorical, to tell us what we ought to do, but these have their flaws as well. He also discusses how like happiness, "good" is a very tough concept to figure out and create a community standard using. Essentially, the problem rests in that "good" is hard to be secured, even by using our reason, will and duty.
Possible Solution: A possible way to solve this issue is through following our imperatives, but using a sort of filter of reason to keep the nonsense out. This can form a true ought of what we should do, that we could then there turn into an is in what we actually do.
problem: Is the will nothing but practical reason? And sometimes the will does not go with reason therefore the actions which are considered necessary are looked as obligations.
solution: The solution would be the imperative of Morality for it has to go according to reason.
The problem of the article is that people do not feel good if they complete a duty; however, they do feel bad if they do not. This is a problem because we should reward ourselves for completing a task instead of just overlooking it as society expects us to do. A possible solution would be to consider rewarding yourself as a duty which needs to be completed; this would insure you receive the reward you deserve.
Since man is rational, but of course not divine by any means, we must use imperatives to assign moral worth to out actions, and to command us to take actions. There are 3 imperatives, two hypothetical, and one categorical. These are respectively the rules of skill, the counsel of prudence, and the laws of morality. These hypotheticals are used to further and end while the categorical is good in itself and requires no other consideration. There is only one categorical imperative, that should we decide upon a maxim, we should first test it by asking ourselves the question of whether or not our maxim would be at all acceptable as a universal law. The answers to this must comply with Aristotelian logic, namely, they cannot contradict themselves. An example of this would be a man killing himself in order to loose his pain and in effect, causing him happiness. The notion of something such as this is absurd in itself and is therefore not worthy of itself. Rational beings cannot help but simply look to the end. A perfect example of this is the schoolboy being drilled over every aspect of knowledge that might seemingly be of use to him. This paranoia of having to be ready for any end is what causes the drive of knowledge which may be essentially worthless to the boy when he finally comes around to selecting an end to suit him. Rather than this blind practice, Kant suggests rather that we should choose the categorical imperatives. These are good in themselves, rather than that of an end. If the rational being can simply turn to the categorical imperative and ask the question of the universal law, our pending actions would become much more easily compared to what is actually morally right, and what must be done.
1. One of the problems that Kant talks about is the process that man uses to find the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is good in itself without any real connection to the good of other imperatives, unlike the hypothetical imperative which is good not on its own but with others which is more like the result. Man, being a rational creature, will want to achieve the good result, the hypothetical imperative, by any means necessary. Kant uses the examples of the physician and the poisoner in that they will accomplish their tasks by any means necessary. Kant is seeing one of the greatest faults in mankind- the fuzzy sticker. He also uses the example of the schoolboy, one that we can relate to, in that he is drilled with knowledge just as today most teachers tech for the test and most students work for the grade not the knowledge.
2. The solution would be to obviously focus more on our process and the categorical imperative instead of the end hypothetical imperative. This would allow us to focus on what is good in itself not what is good for later or is not even good now. In doing this we would be able to check ourselves with intrinsic values going back to chapter one.
The problem within this article is that goodwills which are done because of obligation and not simply good nature are not seen as good deeds.
The solution would be that respect for the law is what gives action moral growth not fear or inclination.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union