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

Kant the ground(a) Law formation of the savorless ImperativeKantian philosophy outlines the normal Law Formation of the prostrate Imperative as a method acting for determining morality of body processs. This form is a two part test. First, peerless creates a byword and considers whether the byword could be a global proposition rightfulness for all rational beings. Second, one(a) determineswhether rational beings would get out it to be a universal law. Once it is absolvethat the saw passes both prongs of the test, there argon no exceptions. As aparamedic faced with a distraught leave who asks whether her latterly savesuffered in his accidental conclusion, you essential ensconce which maxim to create and base on the test which action to perform. The maxim "when answering a widows dubiousness as to the nature and duration of her late husbands death, one shouldalways set up the righteousness regarding the nature of her late husbands death" (M1)passes both parts of the ecumenical Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative.Consequently, accord to Kant, M1 is a moral action.The initial interpret of the general Law Formation of the CategoricalImperative requires that a maxim be universally relevant to all rationalbeings. M1 succeeds in passing the first stage. We butt well imagine a world inwhich paramedics always answer widows truthfully when queried. Therefore, thismaxim is pellucid 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(prenominal) check whether in everycase, a rational being would believe that the chastely correct action is to testifythe truth. First, it is clear that the widow expects to know the truth. A liewould only parcel out to spare her feelings if she believed it to be the truth.Therefore, even population who would consider lying to her, must concede that thecorrect and expected action is to tell the truth. By communicate she has alreadydecided, good or bad, that she must know the truth.What if verbalize the truth brings the widow to the point where shecommits suicide, however? Is telling her the truth then a moral action althoughits subject is this spartan response? 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 CategoricalKant The Universal Law Formation Of The Categorical Imperative essays research papers 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 conside rs 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 world inwhich paramedi cs 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 response? 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