, Research Paper
Whereas a teleological theory of moralss holds that an action is right, depending on the effects ; a deonteological theory provinces that an action is right, depending on the nature of the act itself, or of the purpose of the individual executing the act. Immanuel Kant, a deonteologist, one time said, & # 8220 ; It is adult male & # 8217 ; s ability to ground, his ain ability to believe objectively and apart from his ain fortunes and behaviors, that distinguishes him from all other creatures. & # 8221 ; Reason is an unconditioned rational power, bing more or less every bit in everyone. Given this, one individual concluding logically will make the same decision as another individual concluding logically. As Kant stated, & # 8220 ; Reason binds adult male to man. & # 8221 ; Kant looks for something unconditionally and universally good ( Good without making ) . He rejected, for illustration, intelligence, bravery, and felicity, because they were all capable of doing a state of affairs worse ; an intelligent felon, for illustration. Kant said that the lone thing good in itself was & # 8220 ; a good will & # 8221 ; , viz. , moving for the interest of responsibility. To exemplify this point, he gave the illustration of the grosser, who does non soak his inexperient clients. If he acts like this out of opportunism, to accomplish an honest repute, he is non being genuinely moral. Kant besides says that if the grosser acts like this out of disposition & # 8211 ; he has a kindly nature & # 8211 ; he is still non being genuinely moral. He is merely moral when he acts for the interest of responsibility, because it is his responsibility to be honest. For Kant it is a individual & # 8217 ; s liberty in taking to make the right thing ( & # 8221 ; The good will & # 8221 ; ) , instead than a sort and loving temperament/inclination that is the footing of morality. With this point I personally tend to hold with Kant & # 8217 ; s statement. Kant believes that when we do our responsibility, we all consciously or unconsciously recognize the Categorical Imperative, an absolute bid, in which the first preparation follows as: & # 8220 ; I ought ne’er to move except in such a manner that I can besides will that my axiom should go a cosmopolitan law. & # 8221 ; This bid is non conjectural, non for illustration, & # 8220 ; If you want to be respected, state the truth. & # 8221 ; , but merely & # 8220 ; Tell the truth! & # 8221 ; . Its kernel lies in its ability to be universalised ; if, when universalised, a bid is contradictory or inconsistent, we so know that it is immoral. To assist exemplify this, Kant gives two illustrations of contradictions in the jurisprudence of nature ( consecutive frontward contradictions ) , and two illustrations of the contradictions in the will ( state of affairss which while possible, no 1 would wish to see them universalised ) . Kant & # 8217 ; s two illustrations of contradictions in the jurisprudence of nature, concerns suicide, of which I will be discoursing subsequently, and assuring. His two illustrations of contradictions of the will concern, pretermiting one & # 8217 ; s endowments, and non assisting those in demand, when one is oneself booming. As we can if any of those four are universalised, contradictions will ensue.
Kant & # 8217 ; s first illustration of contradictions in the jurisprudence of nature is as follows:
A adult male feels sick of life, as the consequence of a series of bad lucks that have mounted to the point of desperation. But he is still, so far in ownership of his ground as to inquire himself whether taking his ain life may non be contrary to his responsibility to himself. If he now applies the trial & # 8220 ; Can the axiom of my action truly go a cosmopolitan jurisprudence? & # 8221 ; His axiom is & # 8220 ; From amour propre I make it my rule to shorten my life if its continu
ance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure.” The merely farther inquiry to inquire is whether this rule of amour propre can go a cosmopolitan jurisprudence of nature. It is so seen at one time that a system of nature by whose jurisprudence, the really same feeling whose map is to excite the promotion of life should really destruct life would belie itself, and accordingly could non exist as a system of nature and is hence wholly opposed to the supreme rule of all responsibility. In other words, life produces lifelessness. At the footing of Kant’s theory on morality, stands the belief that rational existences should ever handle all other rational existences every bit, and in the same manner that they would handle themselves. This position is best expressed in Kant’s 2nd formualtion of the Categorical Imperative, which is returns as follows: “Act in such a manner that you ever treat humanity, whether in you own individual or in the individual of any other, ne’er merely as agencies, but at the same clip as an end.” Because people are rational existences, they hence have an built-in value, viz. that they are terminals in themselves, numbering every bit one with another. The rule of universalisation underscores the position of the intrinsic worth of an person. Kant believes that self-destruction is incorrect because it involves a person’s usage of their ego as a agency to get away an unbearable state of affairs. Similarly, doing false promises is incorrect because it involves doing usage of person else as a agency to greater hurting. I understand the point that Kant is doing, nevertheless, I still believe that if a peculiar person is in such an unwanted state of affairs, that they are unable to go on their being, certainly it is comprehendible. If now you put yourself in their topographic point, state me that you would non take the same way. A Roman philosopher named Annaeus Senca ( 4BC – AD65 ) had a similar point of view to mine, opposite to Kant’s. It follows as:
& # 8220 ; & # 8230 ; .life has carried some work forces with the greatest celerity to the seaport, the seaport they were bound to make even if they tarried on the manner, while others it has fretted and harassed. To such a life, as you are cognizant, one should non ever cleaving. For mere life is non a good, but populating good. Consequently, the wise adult male will populate every bit long as he ought, non every bit long as he can. He will tag in what topographic point, with whom, and how he is to carry on his being, and what he is about to make. He ever reflects refering the quality, and non the measure, of his life. Equally shortly as there are many events in his life that give him problem and upset his peace of head, he sets himself free. And this privilege is his, non merely when the crisis is upon him, but every bit shortly as luck seems to be playing him false ; so he looks about carefully and sees whether he ought, or ought non, to stop his life on that history. He holds that it makes no difference to him whether his taking-off be natural or self-inflicted, whether it comes subsequently or before. He does non see it with fright, as if it were a great loss ; for no adult male can lose really much when but a drop remains. It is non a inquiry of deceasing earlier or later, but of deceasing good or ill. And deceasing good means flight from the danger of life ill. & # 8221 ; So as to reason, I can state that agree with some of Kant & # 8217 ; s theories on morality, nevertheless, when it comes to the instance of self-destruction, I feel that it is that persons pick to stop their life, non some purportedly cosmopolitan jurisprudence saying that you can & # 8217 ; T.