Questions on Ethics: Essay II
- Action done in accordance vs. Action done on duty
Acting from duty and acting in compliance or accordance with duty differs on the motivating factor or will. The action is the same. A performer who performs some activity because it is their duty acts from duty if;
- The performance of the activity is regardless of their individual inclination to act or
- The action is regardless of the performer’s personal interests
Different from performance of duty, action in accordance with duty entails performing an action with an inclination or deriving satisfaction from it. Performance in this case is not out of duty commands rather on the performer’s will or interests.
In an illustration of these differences, Kant argues that a shopkeeper will most likely uphold honest with a naive customer in order to build on his positive reputation in the business. In this case, the shopkeeper is not honest because it is a duty rather because he has some interest in it. Therefore, the shopkeeper is acting in accordance with duty by being honest. He is not honest because honesty is his duty to the customer hence the action is not from duty.
- Categorical Imperative
Categorical Imperative is a philosophical concept that provides a platform for people to evaluate ethical or moral actions before arriving at a moral judgment. It is considerably a rule that states what to do based on pure reason that is not subject to change upon sensible desires. Kant has this philosophical concept central in his moral philosophy where it denotes unconditional absolute requirement justified as an end in itself. Kant presented three different Categorical Imperative formulations below.
- Universal Law formulation considered as the first encourages acting on a maxim that has the potential to become a universal law.
- Humanity/End in Itself formulation commonly considered as the second formulation embraces acting in a humanitarian manner whether to self or to others.
- The kingdom of Ends formulation being the third is a combination of the first two. It holds that all maxims while precedent to our making of the law must have conformity with the kingdom of ends.
- Kant’s Universalism criterion
Kant’s Universalism criterion indicates that all people ought to stick to ethical principles. It claims that ethical principles and standards hold for all people without any exception. With regard to Universalism, a maxim such as abstaining from using the phrase “I love you” to others before they say it to us may easily achieve Universalism. The phrase, however, will fade if people observe that maxim universally. The maxim “pay your debts timely” may never achieve Universalism because there are other factors that come to play in matters of settling debts. The essence of assisting those in need will certainly fade if people universally adhere to the maxim “Never help others out unless reaping some benefits out of it”. This maxim may never pass Kant’s Universalism criterion considering that some people exhibit a natural helping spirit. “Cheat on tests whenever there is an opportunity” maxim will certainly achieve universality among students. This, however, may not meet Kant’s criterion considering that some students may never get the opportunity hence disadvantaged. Some students have a hard working spirit and are likely to record good grades at all levels. The maxim on working for good grades in one’s major, therefore, fails to pass the Universalism test. Finally, the maximum that people run their red light in the morning when there is no one around is likely to fail Kant’s Universalism criterion. This is because all people are likely to seek for the opportunity hence never lack a “no one around” incidence.
Works Cited
Cahn, Steven M. and Peter J. Markie. Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
