Kant Essay -- essays research papers

Im patchuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, reckons on the subject. In fact, he wouldve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment instantly often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would foster society by not lonesome(prenominal) preventing a purpertrator from committing the same nuisance again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant wouldve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled by using him as an example, we are using him as a office to an end. A rational being, in Kants view, is an end in himself, whether felonious or virtue-abidingcitizen. We would thus be violating his humanity.In Kants view of ethics, meets must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in faithfulness to law or custom can be regarded as moral. object lesson acts are d one for the right reasons. Kant goes on to pull two types of commands minded(p) by reason the hypothetical imperative, which dictates a given rush of action to reach a specific end and the categorical imperative, which dictates a course of action that must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The categorical imperative is the behind of theology and was stated by Kant in these words Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will and general innate law.Reason, through the categorical imperative, would render such motives immoral nevertheless, if a man is guilty, it would also dictate that he must not escape punishment. Otherwise, not only is justice being flaunted, but equality, which Kant sees as the basis of law and order, will not have been served. When selecting a punishment, equality becomes our standard. But what in Kants view, is equality?To answer this, we must first understand his idea of jus talionisthe right of retaliation. In esse nce, there are two parts to this. One, Kant argues that a punishment must fit the crime. He would argue that the degree of woefulness inflicted on the victim should be inflicted on the perpetrator. Two, if one commits a crime, he is exposing himself to the danger of his actions. If crime were to become prevalentized, and therefore acceptable, what is... ... way, to prove that our principles, based on light, can be rationally applied. Because of this inability to prove our rational perception and thus a moral principle based on that perception, we are unable to demonstrate whether our motives are truly correct. To Kant, these principles can be proven through his transcendental arguments, but there remains the fact that he agreed sensory (and thus transcendental) experience could not be accepted as fact. Because of his lack of definite statement, Kant fails to prove through his arguments that correct aspect or action can be universal.People attempt to describe good based on virt uous thought. Virtuous thought supposes that a virtuous person has a fairly explicit concept of what is moral. Kants perception skews the persons thought because each person perceives an event (whatever the event may be) differently. It is this difference in what people perceive that creates opposing viewpoints on morality whether virtuous or not. Any attempt to provide a universal ethic to the community is impeded by the community itself. Not only was it an impossible task in Kants time, but it is still impossible today.