Case6.docx

Surname 3

Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date

Case 6 Assignment

Introduction
Kant used the notion of obligation to build the foundation for an ethically law in his collected writings. Kant started his moral principles by claiming that the only objectively true excellent virtue is a desirable will. Since every other attribute may be utilized to pursue immoral purposes, no other attribute has this position (the virtue of loyalty is not good if one is loyal to an evil person, for example). The excellent will is unusual in that it is inherently good and keeps its moral worth when its normative aims are not fulfilled. Kant saw goodwill as a unique ethical sense that chooses to utilize another virtue for sum shall at will (Manias, et al 2020).
Goodwill, rendering to Kant, is a larger idea than a duty-driven determination. A will that acts out of responsibility may be eminent from a will that overwhelms problems to follow the ethical rule. A conscientious will is consequently a specific example of a successful will that establishes itself in problematic conditions. Only activities committed in the context of duty, according to Kant, have moral value. This is not to imply that activities conducted just to fulfil a responsibility are unworthy of praise and encouragement; they do, but actions were undertaken only to fulfil a responsibility are held in higher regard (Manias, et al 2020).
People do not do their obligations reluctantly according to Kant’s definition of duty. Even though obligation frequently binds individuals and forces others to act away from their homes, it nonetheless stems from the official’s freewill: the desire to uphold the moral rule. Thus, until an agent acts out of responsibility, this is because rational motives mattered to them again than their conflicting tendencies. Kant wanted to provide ethics of independence, in which rational actors voluntarily accept the reason of the demand makes on themselves (Manias, et al 2020).
Kant contended that rational individuals can never be viewed just as methods to a goal; they must now be viewed as ends in and of themselves, needing fair treatment for their reasoning purposes. This stems from Kant’s assertion that reason inspires morality: we must accept reason as motivation in all creatures, along with other people. Because no logical individual can agree to use just as a tool to a goal, they should always be regarded as such. Kant defended this position by claiming that moral responsibility is a logical necessity: what is intellectually willed is ethically right. Because all rational beings reasonably want to be an aim rather than just a means, treating them as such is ethically required. This is not to say that we should never regard a type of method to a goal, but it does imply that if we do, we should also regard him as either an end in and of himself (Manias, et al 2020).

This paradigm necessitates considering activities as though their ultimate goal is to establish a rule for a fictitious Monarch of Ends. As a result, humans have a responsibility to act on values that’d be accepted as rules by a society of rational actors. Each person in such a society would only adopt maxims that could rule all members of the society, rather than regarding each person as a means to a goal. But even though the Empire of Ends is an ideal—other people’s choices actions and natural occurrences guarantee those good intentions occasionally lead to harm—as legislators of this hypothetical realm, we are nevertheless compelled to act unambiguously (Manias, et al 2020).

Work Cited

Manias, Nicholas and Dave Monroe. The Moral Compass: An Introductory Guide to Critical Thinking and Applied Ethics. 1st Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2020.