The Philosophy of Morality

There is restriction on freedom everywhere. This is a derived idea from the argument of Im troopsuel Kant in his work, An Answer to the interrogative mood What is Enlightenment? This restriction is the tenability why hu whiles be energise as they atomic number 18 they need a harmonious environment within themselves as a pursuit of individual community of well-being, freedom and safety. Hu military musical compositions ar non ultimately free as they could be because their actions have consequences. We whitethorn c whole these consequences, according to Kant, imperatives for actions. The reason why certain acts ought to be through is because they ought to be done (Stratton-Lake, 2000).Generally, a rational human being would do an action consciously for practical reasons, which is considered as hypothetically imperative. It demands that a soul does such action for the sake of a purpose that he has in mind. Why Man should not break promises, why should not articulate lies, why an d should not commit suicide? This is because Man ought not do these acts. According to Kant, the reason why Man should keep his promises because of his obligation to be consistent and the injunction against using others (i.e., against treating them only as means) (Nasr, 2008). This is a cover example of Kants Ought priciple of ethics.Act so that you treat mankind, whether in your possess individual or in that of another, always as an finish up and neer as a means only(Kant, 1785). A true ethical person would not use people to further his own end and he treats other people with respect to a economic value of self-respect and not a value of price because a person with a value of dignity cannot be replaced and their value is priceless. An object with a value of price, as what the hypothetically imperative person believes, can be interchange and used as a means to achieve an end.To Kant, this precept of humanity is the supreme limiting condition on the freedom of action of to each one man, and argues that the principle is not founded on experience exclusively rather position in the footholds of a priori reasoning, reasoning that comes before experience. Indeed, Mans actions are limited and the theoretical Ought of our judgments about facts, like the practical Ought of Ethics, is after all definable only in terms of what Kant called the Autonomy of Will (Royce, 1901).In fact, not only Kant recognized the limitations of the freedom of human Will and the actions that their willing lower upon them and why Man obeys. Another philosopher who made a discourse on this ethical issue is Jonathan Edwards. He noted that there are ethics or the rules (Tappan 1839), which are, in fact, not compelled to be obeyed by everyone however shoot the breeze a strong power upon the conscience of the majority, especially those who believes in an powerful being and those who do not want to feel the uneasiness of the nefariousness and the persecuting temperament of the Man.Disobedience to these manly imposed rules are considered as a claim of sinfulness (Tappan 1839) or the corruption of human sensitivity disposed to founder the harmony and fitness of the spiritual constitution. This is another binding factor that makes man perform the hypothetically imperative actions.Does goodity purely exist? piety is something that is not strongly defined, yet it is considered as the ultimate commandment of reason and this is the guiding source for Mans duties and obligations. Even Kant argues in his extreme Principles of the Metaphysics of cleans that it is only a pure philosophy that we can wait for the deterrent example law in its purity and genuineness. Human beings have moral obligations to each other, and, as previously mentioned, because of reasons that they need and not because of their pure will to do such obligations. Man, to be good to each other without efficacy would be a conceived as having a good will (Kant, 1785) and it essential be u nderstood, however, that humans do not have the autonomous will.They have the morally good will to attain the practical ends that they wish to have. example philosophies follow the laws of human will as affected by nature and when applied to man, it does not borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself (anthropology), but gives laws a priori to him as a rational being. Moral laws imply human judgment that has been sharpened through time and experience in order for them to be properly applied and for these laws to access the will of the man and effectual influence on conduct(Kant, 1785). The virtuous person does not only conform and obeys the moral law.He also act for the sake of the moral law itself. Mans actions are morally remediate as determined by the virtue of their motives, derived not from Mans inclinations but from Mans duty. A virtuous person, who makes a morally right action, is determined to act in accordance with his duty and this duty overcomes that perso ns self-interests and hidden desires. And for Kant, the Ought of Ethics is the defining factor for morality the grit in which the conduct of moral aget is to be judged as good or evil according as it does or does not conform to the example of the Ought (Royce, 1901)As Kant have further argued in his philosophies, the ultimate moral law principle was abstractly conceived to guide man to the right action in biographys circumstances. However, if man is immature enough to acknowledge this guidance, enlightenment would never be achieved. Moreover, it is not only the lack of maturity that deter man and give him obstacles from being enlightened but also laziness, superstitious and authoritative beliefs or fanaticism. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from transfer guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life (Kant, 1784).Enlightenment would pass on to freedom, and, if man is still of prejudices and dogmatic beliefs, Man would be nothing but an unthinking and leashed controlled being. Dogmas are the ball and chain of His permanent immaturity. (Kant, 1784) If Man be immature and an obedient being without reason, he would be an object without dignity, a mere machine.Works CitedKant, Immanuel translated by James W. Ellington 1785 (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.Royce, Josiah. The innovation and the Individual Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of Aberdeen. 2d Series Nature, Man, and the Moral Order. late York Macmillan, 1901.Stratton-Lake, Philip. Kant, Duty, and Moral Worth. London Routledge, 2000.Tappan, Henry Philip. A Review of Edwardss Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will. New York J.S Taylor, 1839.