Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Unit 4 (Deontology-part two) Assignment

Discussion Blog: 1st 3 students, give an example of a hypothetical and a categorical

imperative, and explain what makes one hypothetical and the other categorical; 2nd 3

students, why does Kant reject happiness as the goal for ethics?; last 4 or so students,

restate Kant’s “categorical imperative” (from the reading) and explain what it means to

you.


 “How could you, as an individual, help bring about Kant’s ‘kingdom of ends?’”; 2nd 8

students, “What sort of social/economic conditions would need to exist in order for there

to be a ‘kingdom of ends?’”; and last 8 or so students, “Is the ‘kingdom of ends’ worth

striving for? Why or why not?”

9 comments:

  1. Kant talks about both hypothetical imperatives as well as categorical imperatives. Although they both tell us what to do. Kant talks about There also being a distinction between the two. An example of hypothetical imperatives is, “if you want to take a many trips across the world to see many countries, first you need to get a job so that you are able to pay for your expensive to travel around the world.” Hypothetical imperatives apply to those people who want to achieve a certain goal. Kant says morality isn’t like that it doesn’t tell us what to do when it comes to the assumption of something that when a person is trying or wanting to achieve a particular goal. Categorical imperatives, are much different than those of hypothetical imperatives, they tell us what to do irrespective of our desires. Let’s say, “you come to a red light but you are running late, should you the red light? Running this red light says it is acceptable with categorical imperatives because running the light mean it ok for you and the next to follow to also run this light as you did any time they wanted to.” the focuses is universal law on all mankind, It is all about how all people would wish for all people to act towards one another and in society, and not just limited to their selves Kant says that we have to make the right choice, for the right reasons, and behind every choices there must be ethical and logical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You made a good point about Kant that differs from utilitarianism. In utilitarianism the moral right is whatever is useful to you or the majority but to Kant the majority does not decide what is right or wrong. It is more of a predetermined thing. Every rational being is supposed to have the same moral compass that tells us what to do and how to live our lives. This compass is affected by will, reason, and duty. This type of morals is hard to find in my opinion because while we all have a conscience that tells us good from bad not everyone sees these goods and bads the same while if we all do what is useful to use than we will be more united.

      Delete
  2. The two types of imperatives are hypothetical and categorical. The difference between the two is that a hypothetical imperative has some good in it but it is not entirely good or entirely bad. This is how most things in our world are. Everything that requires thought is a hypothetical imperative. Things like what to eat or what field to major in or what car to buy are all hypothetical imperatives. With food, you could get a food that tastes good but is not as nutritious for you or you could go for a food that tastes good like pizza or a big juice burger and just deal with the possible health problems. Neither of these decisions are completely good or bad. The first one will make you healthier which is good but you might not be as satisfied by the taste while the other one will make you satisfied but maybe not feel as good physically. Categorical imperatives are either good all the way through or bad all the way through. These are much harder to see. Not much if anything is categorically bad even highly addictive drugs can be very good for society. Drugs like morphine are highly addictive but can help people in surgery or with large amounts of pain and even drugs like meth were used to keep the first men in space awake and functioning on their long journeys. The only things I can think of that are completely good are things your body does naturally like breathing. This has no adverse effects so our body doesn’t even give us the choice to do it or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A Categorical Imperative is hard to think of, it seems like for anything you can think of being good can also be bad and anything you think of as bad can be considered good in certain situations. I like the thought of breathing being a categorical imperative, because It obviously has to happen to further our existence. I tried to think of a time in which breathing could be bad but I do not believe one exists. I agree with your thought related to drug use too, obviously they were developed for the beneficiary of modern medicine, but have since been abused.

      Delete


  3. Kant talks about categorical and hypothetical imperatives throughout his metaphysics of mortals. Imperatives are instructions, they tell us what to do. Hypothetical imperatives tell you what to do in order to achieve a particular goal: “If you want to have enough money to buy a new phone, then get a job,” or, “If you don’t want to go to prison, then don’t steal cars”.
    Hypothetical imperatives only apply to people who want to achieve the stated goal. If I don’t care about having enough money for a new phone, then I do not need to get a job in order to get a new phone. If I don’t mind going to prison, then idea that stealing cars is bad does not apply to me. Morality, according to Kant, isn’t like this. Morality doesn’t tell us what to do on the assumption that we want to achieve a particular goal, (staying out of prison). Moral behaviour isn’t about staying out of prison, or being well-liked. Morality consists of categorical imperatives. Categorical imperatives, are different from hypothetical imperatives. Categorical imperatives tell us what to do regardless of our desires. Morality doesn’t say “If you want to stay out of prison, then don’t steal cars,” it says “Don’t steal cars!” We ought not to steal cars whether we want to stay out of prison or not because it is simply the wrong thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your examples of the different imperatives really helped me understand Kant better, you are so smart. Hypothetical imperatives don’t make that much sense to me, I don’t understand them. Your use of ought is also awesome that’s a good word.

      Delete
  4. Kant defines happiness much like that of the utilitarian definition in that it is the continuous well being, enjoyment of life and complete satisfaction with one’s condition. Kant acknowledges the principles of happiness but he does not believe that one should act according to those principles. From deciphering his reading he is focused more on the actual thought process behind the decision making, not just the on/ off switch of happiness. Basing morality on happiness is farfetched because ones happiness can come from the pain of others, although utilitarianism justifies this as the ‘greater good’, this means that not everyone could have complete happiness because everyone has taken some form of it from everyone else. Kant states that happiness is an indeterminate concept. In that even a rational being who may be pursuing happiness could not define it much more than the feeling he gets when he is happy. One may think one thing is happiness but this may also change as one’s mind is cultivated. So if we are constantly pursuing happiness without regard to the fact that our concept of it can change, we will be striving for false happiness. Kant talks about a person who seeks riches due to the concept of happiness through monetary value will ultimately end in unhappiness as he will become anxious and envious with the pursuit of riches. As human beings we don’t have the ability to have the foresight into knowing if certain actions will cause true happiness or not. For this we can never base morality solely on the basis of the pursuit of happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kants categorical imperative states that you act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. In other words, there are no exceptions. What it right and just for one person is then right and just for every other person as well. What this means to me is that everyone is equal. Every single person is held to the same standards ethically. At first I felt like there would be instances in life that would allow a person to act differently than what is accepted by most as ethically right. For instance, the death penalty. I first thought that according to Kant the death penalty would be unethical. I personally am a believer in the death penalty, but thought that according to Kant killing is unethical no matter who is doing the killing. So therefor why is it not O.K. for said criminal to kill, but then his punishment is to be killed by another person. The same act that we have deemed to be unacceptable is the punishment. But then I began to think about circumstances. If the same situation arose again, another criminal committed the same crime. I would still feel it was O.K. for that crime to be punishable by death. So Kants Categorical imperative works in this situation as well. If the situations are exactly the same with the only difference being the person was exchanged for someone else, then it is ethically safe to say that the actions can be the same. No matter who that person is in regards to social status, wealth, or race.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When Kant talks about a Kingdom of ends it comes from his categorical imperative which is “every rational being must act as if he were by his maxims at all times a lawgiving member of the universal kingdom of ends.” This whole thing is kind of over my head but what I got out of it is that we are in the kingdom of ends right now and people, in the kingdom make laws that govern the people. Myself being a somewhat good guy, in my own terms, think that there is much I could do, as an individual, to help out Kant’s Kingdom of Ends. The primary trait that would help me add to it is leadership, though leaders have many qualities, leadership itself is of vital importance. As a leader I could band people together decide what the people want as laws and do all in my power to accomplish that. The person who provides a good example of this is the president of any country or state. The president does what he thinks is best for the people, what he thinks they want. That’s how they are elected, promises to people saying they will impose this or that. As a believer, the kingdom of ends sounds like heaven but I won’t get into that. Kant goes on to say that people are being treated as ends, their goals and aspirations. I agree with this because it is important to know what you want and how to get it.

    ReplyDelete