Wednesday, March 18, 2020
Immanuel Kant Essays
Immanuel Kant Essays Immanuel Kant Essay Immanuel Kant Essay Essay Topic: Immanuel Kant The followers is taken from Immanuel KantÃ¢â¬â¢s The Metaphysics of Morals ( Part II. The Science of Right ) . translated by W. Hastie with emendations and paragraph Numberss added by Jeremy Anderson. The complete text is available free online here. In this extract. Kant first explains what offense is and the different kinds of offenses ( paragraph 1 ) . which is non really of import for our intents. He so presents his position that penalty is justified by the criminalÃ¢â¬â¢s holding committed a offense ( par. 2 ) .This is to be contrasted with other theories of penalty such as the Utilitarian theory. harmonizing to which penalty is justified by the good it brings to society. Kant rejects the Utilitarian theory for two grounds. First. he believes it treats felons as mere means to othersÃ¢â¬â¢ good ; KantÃ¢â¬â¢s Categorical Imperative forbids this. Second. the Utilitarian theory could. perchance. warrant penalizing an guiltless individual because of the good it might convey to society. To Kant. this kind of unfairness is perfectly unbearable.Having explained why we punish people Kant goes on to discourse how and how much to penalize felons ( par. 3-8 ) . Here he asserts that the injury done to the felon should be the injury the felon did to others. both in sum and in sort ( in category we are naming this the Equal Punishment version of the lex talionis ) . The remainder of the piece largely explains what he means by this. with peculiar accent on the demand for the decease punishment. In paragraphs 8 and 10 Kant considers some interesting exclusions to the regulation that liquidators must be executed.Okay. so Kant believed that penalty should ever be in response to a offense Ã¢â¬â penalizing person to protect society or to discourage others is immoral. Kant goes on to state that it is besides immoral for a individual to perpetrate a offense. and non be punished. In other words. every offense merits a penalty ; it is KantÃ¢â¬â¢s signifier of equality. Kant refers to this as jus talionis. which is slackly translates as the right of revenge. However. Kant was opposed to penalizing people if it took away their humanity.In other words. if a individual tortures people. that individual should non be punished by anguish. because making so would be dehumanising OURSELVES. In other words. it would be crouching to the degree of the torturer. Kant did believe in Capital Punishment Ã¢â¬â in fact. he insisted on it. He states in his book. Metaphysicss on Ethical motive s. that harmonizing to Jus Talionis. liquidators MUST die Ã¢â¬â there is no earthly penalty other than decease that can equilibrate out a slaying. and therefore continue Jus Talionis. the balance between offense and penalty.It is like a graduated table Ã¢â¬â the side of justness must equilibrate the side of unfairness. An Exposition of KantÃ¢â¬â¢s. ArendtÃ¢â¬â¢s. and MillÃ¢â¬â¢s Moral Philosophy Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological moralss. His theory offers a position of morality based on the rule of good will and responsibility. Harmonizing to him. people can execute good actions entirely by good purposes without any considerations to effects. In add-on. one must follow the Torahs and the categorical jussive mood in order to move in conformity with and from responsibility.Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss KantÃ¢â¬â¢s moral doctrine. In her instance survey: The Accused and Duties of a Law-abiding Citizen . Arendt examines how Adolf EichmannÃ¢â ¬â¢s actions conformed to KantÃ¢â¬â¢s moral principles but besides how they ran of afoul to his construct of responsibility. In contrast. John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological position of moral doctrine. He exposes his position of consequentialism and utilitarianism to reason that an action is morally right merely to the extent that it maximizes the aggregative felicity of all parties involved irrespective of the motivation.In the present paper. I will expose KantÃ¢â¬â¢s moral principles and the importance of responsibility in his Deontological rules. Then. I will measure ArendtÃ¢â¬â¢s study on Adolf Eichmann to analyse the ways in which his actions were in conformity to or against KantÃ¢â¬â¢s moral doctrine. I will reason my treatment with an rating of MillÃ¢â¬â¢s attack to morality in order to analyze the differences between his teleological doctrine and KantÃ¢â¬â¢s ethical rules.KantÃ¢â¬â¢s moral doctrine is based on the categorical jussive mood ( CI ) . good wil l. and responsibility. Harmonizing to the CI. it is an absolute necessity. a bid that worlds should harmonize with universalizable axioms to handle people as terminals in themselves and exert their will without any concerns about the effects or conditions of their actions. This construct can besides be expressed in systematic footings by the two following preparations.