Question

has full moral standing from a Kantian perspective. EXTRA CREDIT: Do you think the Kantian conclusion is the correct one, why or why not? If you think it was, what would you say to someone that thinks it isn't? If you think it is not, what would you say to someone that thinks it is!

Answer 1

Immanuel Kant, ( April 22, 1724- February 12, 1804), was a German philosopher, His theory is a deontological moral theory that says the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend upon its consequences, it depends upon the act and fulfillment of the duty.

According to him, there is a supreme moral value he called it as the categorical imperative (CI). According to CI one should not do the act that is basically and morally wrong, although its consequences are good.

Kantian's theory cannot be wholly good and valid in all the circumstances. For example, if an individual is attacked, That means one cannot act in self-defense rather let the person inflict harm because to save himself, he has to attack in return and attacking is a morally wrong act. And if by attacking one can save himself the consequences are good but Kantian theory says according to the moral value the act is morally wrong. The consequences are good but CI does not allow self-defense because one is killing the other, and killing is a wrong act. Then what one should do? The theory does not throw light on whether to get killed or kill.

According to Kant's theory, one has to be helpful and act in accordance with moral value. because the person is good or bad depends upon his motivation (that is the reason for the act) and not on the consequences of the act. Moral act depends upon what is our duty regardless of whether we like it or not.

If, I have to say someone with respect to Kantian’s theory. I will defend his theory if the act is morally right and consequences are also good like helping a patient. I can suggest that his theory is morally right. I would not accept his theory in the circumstances where somebody has to be given a blood transfusion. The American system blood is available across the counter, they collect blood from the donors at a reasonably low rate and sell it at a higher price the act of collecting blood at a lower rate is morally wrong but making availability of blood to the needy at the higher price is valid and give good consequences. Thus the Kantians' theory would not support these consequences in this case utilitarian theory holds good.

I can say to the person who says that Kantians theory is right that certain acts require to give focus on the consequences of the act like killing a person in self-defense is right as per utilitarian theory, but the act itself is wrong as per Kantian theory. By helping a poor or a needy person where the act and the consequences both are good goes well with Kantian's theory. Thus one has to act according to the consequences, wherever applicable. And one should act in accordance with the moral values and fulfill his obligations and duty where the consequences of the act are good.

In fact, consequences and acts both have their value an immoral act can give good consequences and a morally good act can give bad consequences.