Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (Immanuel Kant)
What would be the main claim and supporting arguments for Metaphysics of Morals?
Nothing can be regarded as good in itself, except a good will. A will is good when it acts solely out of duty, i.e. on the basis of respect for universal moral law. Rational beings are ends in themselves.
- Qualities such as intelligence, wit, judgment, etc. can all be put to a wrong use.
Therefore these qualities are not good in themselves, i.e. intrinsically good.
- It is possible to perform correct actions for the wrong reasons, e.g. being honest out of self-interest.
Therefore a good will is not good by virtue of what it accomplishes.
- One would not be good is one were simply programmed to enjoy performing beneficent actions.
Therefore a good will is not good by virtue of enjoying performing beneficent actions.
In Kant's view, a person is good when that person performs an action not because he or she has any natural inclination to perform the action, but rather because he or she recognizes it as his or her duty to perform the action, i.e. he or she is performing the action out of respect for universal moral law. He considers an action to be a duty when the motives prompting that action can be universalized.
Further, in Kant's view, every rational being recognizes himself as having intrinsic worth, i.e. as being something of value. Rationality demands that one recognize that every rational being thinks of his or her existence in this way. According to Kant, this implies that if I am to think of myself as having intrinsic value, then I must also think of others as having intrinsic value. Thus, if I do not think I should be used merely as an ends to a means, neither should I think that other rational beings can be used merely as ends to a means.
You might also like to view...
What according to James is a necessary condition for moral responsibility?
a. Free will b. Compatibilism c. Determinism d. God
A grouping ambiguity is
A. a structural vagueness. B. neither a kind of semantic ambiguity nor a kind of syntactic ambiguity. C. a special kind of semantic ambiguity. D. a special kind of syntactic ambiguity.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls itself “the oldest comprehensive consumer
protection agency in the U.S. federal government.” Although some regulatory functions can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century, FDA marks its modern beginnings with the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, which prohibited interstate commerce in “adulterated and misbranded food and drugs.” Today it has an entire office devoted to unapproved drugs, whose goal is “to promote and protect public health through science driven, comprehensive, strategies and actions that communicate potential risks about drug products and minimize exposure to unsafe, ineffective, or poor quality unapproved or misbranded drugs.” FDA is a prime example of a government agency trying to be a parent, protecting us from ourselves in taking unsafe or unproven drugs. Another way of stating this is that FDA is trying to prevent us from committing the victimless crime of taking unsafe or unproven drugs.
What will be an ideal response?Determine whether the following symbolized argument is valid or invalid. If invalid, provide a counterexample; if valid, construct a deduction.P v (R & ~S)Q ? ~P/? Q ? S
What will be an ideal response?