09/14/2017
Professor Galloway
Philosophy 320
Kant
Immanuel Kant wrote his essay, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals,”
about utilitarianism and how morally good actions are based on reason. In a time of
enlightenment, many scholars were beginning to shy away from basing their theories on God or
religion, and Kant was one of them. He claimed that ant rationally thinking human could reason
between positive and negative actions, and how they affect others.
Kant also claimed that good wills are not good because of their outcomes, effects, or
consequences, but by the virtue of the person doing them. He also clarifies that there is no divine
set of rules or morals that make actions good or bad. Actions are not truly moral if one does
something for no other reason than to just do it, and that it is impossible to truly know if any
motives are pure because almost everything can be accredited to other motives.
There is also no truly possible way for one to gather universal laws from subjective
circumstances. A rational thinking human should either define moral principles with objective
laws or subjective needs.
This essay is extremely difficult to interpret but from what I can understand, I disagree
with much Kant has written. I believe moral principles are based on reason and not on God or
religion, but I don’t agree that it’s impossible to know motives behind people’s actions.
Professor Galloway
Philosophy 320
Kant
Immanuel Kant wrote his essay, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals,”
about utilitarianism and how morally good actions are based on reason. In a time of
enlightenment, many scholars were beginning to shy away from basing their theories on God or
religion, and Kant was one of them. He claimed that ant rationally thinking human could reason
between positive and negative actions, and how they affect others.
Kant also claimed that good wills are not good because of their outcomes, effects, or
consequences, but by the virtue of the person doing them. He also clarifies that there is no divine
set of rules or morals that make actions good or bad. Actions are not truly moral if one does
something for no other reason than to just do it, and that it is impossible to truly know if any
motives are pure because almost everything can be accredited to other motives.
There is also no truly possible way for one to gather universal laws from subjective
circumstances. A rational thinking human should either define moral principles with objective
laws or subjective needs.
This essay is extremely difficult to interpret but from what I can understand, I disagree
with much Kant has written. I believe moral principles are based on reason and not on God or
religion, but I don’t agree that it’s impossible to know motives behind people’s actions.
