Dignity and Freedom: Immanuel Kant

Kants theories vary greatly with that of other philosophers. He was a retributivist who believed that it is alright to punish the wrongdoers as long as such punishment is tantamount or equivalent to the weight of the crime that was done. penalization with come forth proper reasons or justifications, such as jailing someone for petty larceny is ( fit in to the Kant) unjust. He spoke about punishment on the critique of functional reasons which is in contrast with Jeremy Benthams system. Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian theorist who considers punishment as evil (Robert, 2000).While Bentham supports rehabilitation efforts in prisons Kant found such efforts im example. Kant advertise argued that such actions acted against ones personal shrewd choices. Kant rejects manipulation of people even when the causes and reasons be just. He believes that people should be allowed to reason for themselves and their decisions should be respected. Kant criticized other theories on the grounds t hat they were only hypothetical and could not be applicable in the material world.Some theories argue that the greater good ought to be considered when acting, nevertheless, such opening would be irrelevant to someone whose interest is contrary to the maintenance of the habitual good. Hypothetical good systems should not be utilize to determine the moral action since they argon very subjective. He spurned Humes speculation on the humorl theory of the mind. To Kant, analytical methods should not be use to explain what is physically evident. He believes that synthetic reasoning involves relating concepts that atomic number 18 not directly related to the subject concept. A prior knowledge pile be used in the metaphysics study. (Bayne, 2000)Kant criticizes the utilitarian view regarding happiness as the highest goal. He opposes this view as it created loopholes in arguing that people hardly wants to strive happiness. Happiness as far as Kant is concerned is a product of emo tion. Following Kants arguments, acknowledging happiness as mans final goal would be like ignoring the fact that human beings atomic number 18 keen and open fire choose or plan and anticipate their future. Kant portrays the flavourless compulsory approach where he sees all human beings as occupants of a special place in creation. People have different unavoidably which ought to be satisfied using certain means.He uses the term proverb to call forth to intentions or principle of action. Human beings should not act in a way that portrays other people simply as means to an abolish but as an end to itself. In working to attain the precept people should not use others as means. People used should gain from the arrangement and their consent should be sought. To him, duties should be beneficial to people used in the process of attaining the goals. I crack with Kants theory as all people should be treated with equality and with respect. There are two types of imperatives. The hy pothetical imperative tells what we ought to do in order to achieve a goal.The savourless imperative leads to absoluteness since human beings are clear-sighted and lot govern their actions. People should only act on maxims that can become universal law. To Kant, on that point are universal moral laws that are logically necessary. Peoples actions should and so be performed according to the acceptable universal laws of morality. Individuals should act according to the same moral laws (Robert, 2000). any(prenominal) people should be treated with moral respect. Deception should not be considered even when being applied for wrongdoers. To Kant, duties can be perfect or imperfect.Imperfect duties entail working to develop our talents since they are given to us for a purpose while perfect duties entail a duty to others. Kant rejected the ethical force brought about by tradition and coined the modern idea of autonomy. familiarity is simply the capability of an individual to act on b ehalf of his own. Autonomy of the will is the ability of the will to be a will in itself while the will refers to the means by which a maxim can become a universal law. This lies in contrast with the notion of Heteronomy which is acting after observing the various consequences that an action has produced.He brought about the idea of centrality of rational thought. Each person can make free and autonomous choices and they are compelled by modestness and the categorical imperative in their decisions. Adherence to categorical imperative provides for autonomous ethical choice since people make their decisions rationally. In pursuit for various maxims all parties involved benefit from the arrangement (Collins, 2000). To Kant, objects do not have value but man gives them value through with(predicate) their rational goals and desires. Human beings have an intrinsic worth or dignity.They should therefore act in good will out of a smell of duty and use the categorical imperative. What we give to society comes back to us and we ought not to harm others but work in ensuring that they benefit from out actions. I agree with the ideas presented by Kant, provided the way in which he had defended the rationality of people. I also agree that there are categorical imperative laws or universal maxims which comprise our ethical standards. Nevertheless, I could not agree that people are ought to be treated as ends in themselves, for there are hard cases wherein one must treat someone as a means to an end.For instance, if the only way for a person to belong is to get an organ from someone who is already dying, wouldnt it be rational to take the organ and use it for the persons benefit since its real owner is already dying. Thus, there might be cases wherein Kants theory may fail or may not be of any use. Another famous example is the situation that involves lying. It is a universal maxim for Kant that people must not tell lies. However, if there is a killer whale at the lobby looking for a certain person, whom by panorama you know where, was hiding would it still be wrong to tell a lie (Bass).