The Philosophy of Morality

There is restriction on liberty everywhere. This is a derived idea from the argument of Im small-armuel Kant in his work, An Answer to the Question What is learning? This restriction is the reason wherefore human beingss be shit as they ar they need a harmonious environment within themselves as a pursuit of individual community of well- universe, freedom and safety. Humans are non ultimately free as they could be because their body processs have consequences. We may hollo these consequences, according to Kant, imperatives for actions. The reason why certain acts ought to be done 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 patch should non break promises, why should not tell lies, why and should not commit suicide? This is because Man ou ght not do these acts. check to Kant, the reason why Man should keep his promises because of his obligation to be unvarying and the injunction against using others (i.e., against treating them alone as means) (Nasr, 2008). This is a concrete face of Kants Ought priciple of ethics.Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means but(Kant, 1785). A true ethical person would not use people to further his own end and he treats other people with respect to a hold dear of dignity 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 exchanged and employ as a means to achieve an end.To Kant, this tenet of humanity is the autocratic limiting condition on the freedom of action of from each one man, and argues that the principle is not founded on experience still rather seated in the footholds of a priori reasoning, reasoning that comes before experience. Indeed, Mans actions are limit 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 will impose 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 but impose a strong power upon the conscience of the majority, especially those who believes in an Almighty being and those who do not want to feel the uneasiness of the cruel and the persecuting spirit of the Man.Disobedience to these manly imposed rules are considered as a state of dark (Tappan 1839) or the corruption of hu man sensitivity disposed to violate the harmony and fitness of the spiritual constitution. This is another binding factor that makes man work out the hypothetically imperative actions.Does object lessonity purely exist? Morality is something that is not strongly defined, yet it is considered as the ultimate commandment of reason and this is the manoeuver source for Mans duties and obligations. Even Kant argues in his Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of moral philosophy that it is only a pure philosophy that we can look for the moral jurisprudence 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 qualification would be a conceived as having a good will (Kant, 1785) and it must be understood, 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. Moral philosophies total the laws of human will as affected by nature and when use to man, it does not borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself (anthropology), but spend a pennys laws a priori to him as a rational being. Moral laws require human judgment that has been sharpened through time and experience in nightclub for them to be properly applied and for these laws to access the will of the man and legal 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 right as set(p) 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 impelled to act in accordance with his duty and this duty overcomes that persons self-interests and hidden desires. And for Kant, the Ought of Ethics is the defining factor for mor ality the sense 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 standard 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 lifes circumstances. However, if man is fleeceable enough to acknowledge this focusing, 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 dogmatic beliefs or fanaticism. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a oversized proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life (Kant, 1784).Enlightenment would result to freedom, and, if man is still of prejudices and dogmatic beliefs, Man would be nothing but an detached and leashed controlle d being. Dogmas are the ball and chain of His permanent immaturity. (Kant, 1784) If Man stays immature and an obedient being without reason, he would be an object without dignity, a mere(prenominal) machine.Works CitedKant, Immanuel translated by James W. Ellington 1785 (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.Royce, Josiah. The World and the case-by-case Gifford Lectures Delivered before the University of Aberdeen. 2d Series Nature, Man, and the Moral Order. New York Macmillan, 1901.Stratton-Lake, Philip. Kant, Duty, and Moral Worth. capital of the United Kingdom Routledge, 2000.Tappan, Henry Philip. A Review of Edwardss Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will. New York J.S Taylor, 1839.