Kant Theories and Criticism Kant's Theories and Criticism

Kant's Theories and Criticism

Kant's work with respect to good will and morality is appreciable but is also criticized in numerous manners. The philosophical phenomenon of Kant addresses the moral conduct with respect to good will but fails to address this acceptance universally. In this study, the contribution and postulation of Kant are discussed and are enlightened with respect to the critics that are made against his work.

To Maria Von Herbert, January 1793

To Kant, from Maria Von Herbert

Kant has determined the three types of motivation which enables the individuals to carry out certain activities and adopt certain behaviors in their life which comprises on ones' thinking about the rightfulness of that activity, the extent of pleasure related to performing such rightful activities and ones' tendency to be impelled in order to carry out certain tasks. This degree of motivation enable a person to indulge in certain work related behaviors based on distinctive level of good will. Kant has discussed some examples in which the person's ability to do the right thing with respect to his dutifulness towards these activities regardless of expecting any intrinsic or extrinsic reward in return. Kant describes that a morally right person may be performing the rightful actions in order to accomplish some benefits in the future and the notion is followed by the example of a merchant who deprives overpricing which is morally right but his intentions are followed by the future profits due to large number of his customer. In this way the phenomenon of sympathetically constituted is not well addressed by the actions of that merchant. The sympathetic person is found to do the right thing but he never quantifies the moral worth of his actions and adheres to the incentives and rewards that he will get due to the undertaking of such actions. Such people are satisfied because they tend to do the right things and enjoy their actions, therefore, the notion of 'pleasure' is enlighten in his actions in which he has done the right thing in accordance with his will and desire. On the other hand, a person is considered to be a friend of mankind when that person carries out morally good behavior and attitude as a part of his duty and responsibility towards doing the right thing then such person is considered to be the rightful person whose intentions of doing the right things does not lie around the monetary and intrinsic benefits that he may achieve as a consequence of these actions. The phenomena of second proposition from the work of Kant indicates that actions are considered to be well-intentioned when they deprive of any incentive in the future and entirely depend on the phenomena of duty that one holds in response to carry out such activities. However, these activities often provide the posteriori materialistic incentive which cascades the moral worth related to such activities (Kant, 2002).

Answer # 1B

The universal law carries the notion of imperativeness in which the fourth example precedes with the notion of an individual who needs to borrow money in accordance to address his financial needs, the individual makes promise to return the money, however, the knows that he is not able to pay back. The universal law has been implied with the notion that lying is necessary in order to borrow some money and the law of universality addresses the individual's needs and in order to fulfill his necessities, the notion of lying is considered to be morally right because it is addressing someone's need. However, the law of humanity addresses the same example in which the behavior of an individual is assessed in order to get something done. For instance, the individual will never lend his money without knowing that he will get his money back. Therefore, if a person is lying to get money; it is due to the reason because that person believes that he will not get money unless he makes false promise and in order get his work done, the person lies instantly. The law of humanity is able to address the situation in which an individual is lying not because he thinks that lying is necessary in order to get money but because he thinks that from the person whom he is asking money is not going to have him borrow unless he is provided with a promise for the return of money. In this way, the person is making his...

The law of humanity is able to explain the example in a better way because it is not providing the pre-judgmental for someone to get his work done but because it is emphasizing on the individual's perception under which he is agreed to provide money (Korsgaard, 1986; Kant, 2002).
Answer # 2A

Kant's work suggest that lying as compared to potential murder is permissible and Korsgaard indicates law of universality and humanity are interrelated and if one perceives that if he lies about the presence of someone then the murderer will not kill that person but the notion of universality indicates that one cannot know if the person really wants to murder someone and even if he lies then it not guaranteed that the murderer will not make another attempt to kill that person. Hence, the law of universality is violated here which ultimately violates the law of humanity. The justification of someone's murder is not made by someone who lied and tried to protect someone whereas; the law of humanity prevails around the idea that one should not let his honesty used as a tool to harm someone. The lie should be used in self-defense and it has been argued that lie should be used with the deceiver in order to minimize his deception, whereas, an individual has no right to lie to someone just because the individual thinks that someone's intentions are bad. The law of universality rationalizes this notion with the example that if a philanthropist asks to conduct a survey of an individual's residence and will be paying money for that just because he has misunderstood the residence with some historical place and in this situation a lie can provide with the monetary benefits. The same phenomena applies to the notion of murder in which one will be lying in order to get the ideal results. Therefore, if lie is not permissible in the example of philanthropist then the lie should not be permissible in the example of a murder (Korsgaard, 1986; Kant, 2002).

Answer # 2B

The actions that were taken place under the example of philanthropist and murder contradict each other but also fulfill the judgmental requirement of the universal law which makes lying forbidden in the situation. There exist two potential reasons to lie as opposed to murder of which one comprises of the phenomena of mutual aid which gives us the reason to tell a lie in order to provide aid to someone. The tendency of one's lie depends on the individual's perspective upon which one thinks that the lie is permissible and if someone thinks that it comes under his moral conduct to lie in order to prevent the act of murder then such individual is permissible to lie based on his responsibility towards the provision of help to someone. Moreover, the lie is considered to be permissible under the urgent occasions and under such conditions, lie is considered to be imperative in nature. However, the urgency of matter and the responsibility to provide aid to some makes the lie permissible and imperative. Another phenomenon under this example is followed by the individual's self-respect and it has been observed that the murderer is asking the whereabouts of his target in order to take advantage of the individual's honesty so that the provided information can be used to harm someone. Therefore, the individual is accountable to the humanity in order to protect someone from the potential harm and the individual should not let some murderer to use one's honesty as a resource to be utilized in any evil and illegal activities. Moreover, the person who holds the good character and good virtue will decide to tell a lie and the protection and aid towards someone will be emphasized in order to prevent the happening of some illicit activities. The arguments of Korsgaard are challenged with Kant's argument in which Kant postulates that even if someone tells the whereabouts of someone and any criminal activity is conducted on the basis of the information that is provided to someone then the person who provided the information is not considered to be guilty in the court of law. The murder is conducted by the murderer not by the truthful person and the example of philanthropist is found to be faded due to the fact that a philanthropist is not evil and the actions conducted by him are not considered to be morally right because he had made assumptions even before interacting with someone in order to get the…