Kant
...e act from duty, as dictated by our innate reason. This is an example of autonomous will. Along with duty is the difference between the Categorical Imperative and the Hypothetical Imperative. An example of this is two grocers in a town are John and Joe. John wants to keep his trade, so he insists on selling the best goods, giving the best service, being friendly and polite, and offering value for money. Joe does the same, not to keep his trade, but because it is what he should do. According to Kant, even though the actions are the same, John is acting immorally, according to the Hypothetical Imperative, while Joe is acting morally, according to the Categorical Imperative. For Kant, the act is not important. As long as you are acting from duty and the motive is right, the act must be right. All means to an end have a just conditional worth because they are valuable only for achieving something else. The possessor of a rational will, however, is the only thing with unconditional worth. In Kant’s theory the possession of rationality puts all beings on the same footing. Kant critic sizes utilitarianism because utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. Kant objects to moral evaluations of this sort. To him the essence of the objection is that utilitarian theories actually devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit. If we allow utilitarian calculations to motivate our actions, to him we are allowing the assessment of one person’s welfare and interests in terms of what good they can be used for. It would be possible, for instance, to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefits of others if the utilitarian calculations promise more benefit. Doing so would be the worst example of treating someone utterly as a means and not as an end. Another way to look at his objection is to note that utilitarian theories are driven by the merely contingent leaning in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law dictated by reason. To act in pursuit of happiness, to Kant, is illogical and subjective, and is no more moral than acting on the basis of greed, or selfishness. He thinks the danger of utilitarianism lies in its embracing of baser instincts, while rejecting the indispensable role of reason and freedom in our actions. The Formula of the End deals with ends and means. Kant states that you must not treat people as means to your own end, but as ends in themselves. It is similar to Christianity’s ‘Golden Rule’ except for the Universalisability Principle. The example of this is suicide. The ‘Golden Rule’ does not apply in this case, because when a person commits suicide, he does not treat others in ways he would want to be treated. He does not treat them at all, because he only treats himself. The Kingdom of Ethics states that human beings, because they are rational possess inherent value. This means that they are ends in themselves. Their value is essential, not instrumental. Kant feels that no rule of conduct, which applies to all human beings, can sanction actions favouring one person over another or agree to conduct where one person treats another as a means to an end. Kant’s ethics are founded in and based on respect for persons. In following a certain course of moral action a person is enacting a Kingdom of Ethics, the third aspect of the Categorical Imperative. Along with ethics is the idea of good will. Kant believes that it is wrong to intentionally break a promise that you have made with a person. He feels that good will is a pure duty outlook that disregards consequences entirely. He says that a good will is a wanting, which is informed by reason. It is a wanting which stems, not from inclination, but from duty. Reason is not able to guide the will safely regarding its objects. Instincts get you closer to what you want to accomplish. He feels that reason is only the comparing of ideas, and that reason will influence us away from our influences. The cultivation of reason is required for the purpose, and the purpose leads to happiness, therefore reason is compatible with happiness. Reason will bring the highest good that transcends all beauty, transcending even happiness. He feels that we possess two sources of input. These are physical sensation and the sense of moral duty. Physical sensation starts an application of reason to experience, creating the perception of phenomenal objects. The supreme rational example of this is science. The sense of moral duty begins an application of reason that produces ethics and religion. The supreme rational example of this is the ideas of God, freedom, and immorality, which to Kant are required as conditions of the Moral Law. This is because we do not have the real intuition that we have of physical objects. The reality shown by morality is a matter of faith for Kant. This is a conclusion from the Moral Law. This way, “transcendental idealism” is different form “subjective idealism” and “objective idealism”, since they both show certainties about the ultimate nature of things, while Kant does not. The nature of things that we cannot know about concretely is revealed in science. This way, Kant’s transcendental idealism is equal to empirical realism. Metaphysics is what he means by “transcendental idealism.” Transcendental idealism means epistemically, or pertaining to the knowledge or the conditions for acquiring it. Concluding that “transcendental” means in the sense pertaining to knowledge, “independent of experience.” Kant combines two entirely different theories together in one book. The first theory is the fundamental activity of the mind, “synthesis”, is an activity of thought that applies certain concepts to previously given perception from experience. This explains the division between the “Transcendental Aesthetic” about t...