Kantian Ethics is a system of ethics, which affirms that good will is the foundation of ethics. It is a good will, that is the only things that is good as in it self. Kant defines a good will as the correction motivation and thinking, not an emotional sympathetic means but rather “the highest order” of pure practical reason. If one follows Kantian beliefs, there are two crucial questions that one must ask oneself before making decisions surrounding one’s personal ethic: 1. Can I “rationally will” that I want all people in all places, at all times to partake in this action? If the answer is no, then one cannot perform this action. 2. Will my action honor the goals and desires of mankind “rather than merely using them for” one’s …show more content…
Consequences present an issue within this theory because “there are some occasions when consequences are so severe that many think it is better to break a rule than allow awful things to happen” such as lying to save someone’s life. Furthermore, the concept of Kantian Ethics is so inflexible. One should be warranted the opportunity to disregard “an unhelpful rule” if a specific example warrants this neglection. Moreover, this theory presents conflicting duty. For example, you’re mother is deathly sick and you were going to enlist into the Navy, which duty do you follow? Also, this theory lacks clarity as to how broad one’s application of the Categorical Imperative can be. This theory works extremely well for broad issues, however the more specific the issues get, the harder it is to provide a subjective objective answer. This theory also makes it relentlessly difficult to create the appropriate maxim. For example, thieves enter the bank you work at, they demand access to the safe, and you say you do not have access but in actuality you do. Which maxim do you universalize? Lastly, Kantian Ethics are very unforgiving; there is neither mercy nor grace but a strict system of “retributive justice”. …show more content…
I found this theory to be very convicting. I had to truly assess why I do the things that I do. Why do I keep the rules? Am I looking for affirmation or am I just afraid of the consequences? If I am being brutal honestly, most of the time I keep the rules for one of the two reasons. Furthermore, I found the categorical imperative to be so profound: Would I want all people in all places at all times to do what I am about to do? Thus, the subconscious use of the categorical imperative has brought a great sense of self-awareness to my life. However, I cannot agree with the entirety of this theory because there is no room to be human here. There is no room for error, no grace no mercy. Thus, the Cross and the death of Jesus for my sins is irrelevant in this sphere. Romans 4:25 states, “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification”, thus is I believe and live by (New International Version). I cannot fully agree or support theory that contradicts Christ’s suffering for me. I really enjoyed learning about this theory because it truly made me deepen my evaluation of my own ethics, character and good