Kant: The Universal Law Formation Of The Categorical Imperative :: essays research papers

Kant the Universal rectitude makeup of the unconditional arrogantKantian ism outlines the Universal Law organisation of the plane Imperative as a method for determining ethics of achieves. Thisformula is a two spell test. First, one realises a byword and considers whether themaxim could be a universal proposition law for all demythologised cosmoss. Second, one determineswhether quick of scent beings would depart it to be a universal law. formerly it is clearthat the maxim passes both prongs of the test, thither are no exceptions. As aparamedic faced with a distraught widow who asks whether her deeply husbandsuffered in his accidental death, you moldinessiness decide which maxim to create andbased on the test which operation to perform. The maxim "when retorting a widowsinquiry as to the nature and sequence of her latish husbands death, one should ever tell the truth regarding the nature of her late husbands death" (M1)passes both split of the Universa l Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative.Consequently, according to Kant, M1 is a incorrupt action.The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the CategoricalImperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rationalbeings. M1 succeeds in passing the first stage. We evict easily imagine a world inwhich paramedics always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, thismaxim is reasonable and all(prenominal)one can abide by it without causation a logicalimpossibility. The bordering logical step is to apply the instant stage of the test.The second unavoidableness is that a rational being would will this maxim tobecome a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in everycase, a rational being would turn over that the morally correct action is to tellthe truth. First, it is clear that the widow expects to feel the truth. A liewould just serve to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth.Therefore, still people who would consider duplicity to her, must concede that thecorrect and evaluate action is to tell the truth. By asking she has alreadydecided, good or bad, that she must know the truth.What if carnal knowledge the truth brings the widow to the point where shecommits suicide, except? Is verbalise her the truth thusly a moral action althoughits import is this terrible response? If telling the widow the truthdrives her to commit suicide, it seems standardised no rational being would will themaxim to become a universal law. The suicide is, however, a consequence of yourinitial action. The suicide has no bearing, at least for the CategoricalKant The Universal Law Formation Of The Categorical Imperative essays research written document Kant the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical ImperativeKantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of theCategorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of actions. Thisformula is a two part test. First, one creates a maxim and considers whether themaxim could be a universal law for all rational beings. Second, one determineswhether rational beings would will it to be a universal law. Once it is clearthat the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. As aparamedic faced with a distraught widow who asks whether her late husbandsuffered in his accidental death, you must decide which maxim to create andbased on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a widowsinquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husbands death, one shouldalways tell the truth regarding the nature of her late husbands death" (M1)passes both parts of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative.Consequently, according to Kant, M1 is a moral action.The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the CategoricalImperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rationalbeings. M1 succeeds in passing the first stage. We can easily imagine a wor ld inwhich paramedics always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, thismaxim is logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logicalimpossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of the test.The second requirement is that a rational being would will this maxim tobecome a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in everycase, a rational being would believe that the morally correct action is to tellthe truth. First, it is clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A liewould only serve to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth.Therefore, even people who would consider lying to her, must concede that thecorrect and expected action is to tell the truth. By asking she has alreadydecided, good or bad, that she must know the truth.What if telling the truth brings the widow to the point where shecommits suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action althoughits consequence is this terrible respo nse? If telling the widow the truthdrives her to commit suicide, it seems like no rational being would will themaxim to become a universal law. The suicide is, however, a consequence of yourinitial action. The suicide has no bearing, at least for the Categorical