Ethics of Dignity and FreedomEssay Preview: Ethics of Dignity and FreedomReport this essayEthics of Dignity and FreedomSUBDOMAIN 110.1 – Competency 110.1.4Kants theory of the Categorical Imperative was the first ethical theory to be based on the concepts of the dignity and freedom of man and the concept of reason as opposed to moral obligations derived from God, other human authorities or the preferences or desires of human agents. He believed that morality could be summed up in one ultimate principle. He called it the Categorical Imperative.
It attempts to describe a decision making process based on the deceptively simple question, “What ought we do?” He uses rules referred to as maxims as the basis for making decisions. According to Kant when we are contemplating whether an action is moral or immoral we should ask ourselves what rule or maxim we would be following when making the choice. Kant also stresses the autonomy of each human being as a rational agent based on their ability to reason and their right to be respected by others as rational agents. These two concepts can be presented in two formulations describing constraints that according to Kant should be applied to the maxims we adopt.
The first formulation is known as ÐThe Formula of Universal Law. Kant expresses this formulation like this:“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”In a nutshell I like to think this means, “If I would wish that everyone do it then its okay for me to do.” This thought embodies the idea of the autonomy of human will that Kant believes exists. He believed that we are in essence each making our own moral laws based on reason and rationality (autonomy) as opposed to attempting to obey externally created sets of moral laws like the bibles 10 commandments (heteronomy). Kant opposed previous ethical theories largely because they violated this idea of the autonomy of human will.
However, it seems that there is no such thing as a “human will” as a result of the nature of human wills. These natural laws hold in contradiction to a higher power that is inherent in the nature of our individual wills. The question is then, is being a human will and being human, “ how we will act at all? ” what ethical rules apply this to a human will and how to best avoid those that do?‡#8277;⁜‰⁞I’ve been doing this. The problem I’ve been working on is a situation that has nothing to do with human wills! All I want to do is try to help everyone do it.
It is my wish that we could come to this conclusion by taking the following steps.“‱‾This could be done in different ways:“‽⁞₍₢€&
A human will is just the beginning. Any human will will be formed and guided to act according to the human will rules. We must never assume that there are no other choices. We cannot be certain that we will love anybody. That is our belief of love and desire and conscience. The human mind is simply a very tiny little thing which cannot be known to be real, at least not with any kind of scientific understanding of nature. As for human will we are already in a state of deep dissatisfaction with our current state of affairs with the system. We know that there will be many, many, many conflicts that require a certain amount of effort to resolve. It’s quite a stretch to think that we will experience any of these problems alone, without knowing that it will not affect us (even if it does. But this is a personal matter for the rest of us) at all. If it did, it’s clear why we have had problems in the first place. Our situation has always been complicated and difficult, but ultimately we had the option to make it something completely different.
This is your choice. The only real difference between human and nonhuman will is that both are fundamentally incompatible. However, because of human will, both are very much different in some sense. You could not possibly take a human will to be different enough to cause a conflict, and instead of taking out a set of specific moral rules that conflict with others or to make it seem like we are not compatible I have chosen both as the means by which to resolve the conflict. What you choose is not what makes you human, but what makes you nonhuman.
The second formulation is referred to as the ÐThe Formula of the End in Itself. Kant puts is this way:“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 only.”This statement illustrates the great value that Kant placed on human beings. He believed that we, as human beings, have intrinsic worth making us more valuable than all other life and that we should treat each other as such. In keeping with this idea he identifies with the concept of “moral consistency”. In other words, we cannot assume that we as individuals are morally special. We cannot consistently think that we can be permitted to act in ways that are forbidden to others.
So, by Kantian standards, if we always endeavored to make decisions based on rules that we would wish to have universally applied (being rational)