Ethics is a statement worthy of philosophy, I consider

Ethics
(or moral philosophy) can be defined as something that involves systematizing,
defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers
today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas:
metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics, investigates
where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. When I think of
ethical behavior or concepts of right or wrong, one of my favorite quotes from
the song Go with the Flow comes to
mind. “I want something good to die for to make it beautiful to live.” I
believe this to mean that a life is only worth living, if something in that
life is worth dying for. If you don’t care about anything deeply enough to give
your life for it, then there’s not much meaning to the life you’ve got. While
this is a statement worthy of philosophy, I consider it a representation of ethical
code and morality as well. Kant would’ve probably agreed with this notion based
off of his Categorical Imperative. “Act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” In this paper
I will explain the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and contrast it to utilitarian
philosophy. 

Firstly,
to expound on the philosophy of Kant, I have to explain how his philosophy came
about. Immanuel Kant, born April 22, 1724, in Prussia, was essential to what we
refer to as modern philosophy. At age 46, Kant was already a credited
philosopher and scholar in his own right, and credits David Hume for “awakening
him from dogmatic slumber.” 1 David Hume was a Scottish philosopher who was
well known for his skepticism of religion and metaphysics. David Hume, is
widely considered to be one of the greatest Philosophers. But his philosophy amongst
the philosophical community is thought to be extremely idiotic. Although, his
followers believe it is factual, it can also be argued that it is not. David
Hume basically states that everything that you think is possible is also
impossible. Hume believed anything that science has proven, can also be
disproven; because of this nothing is true. Hume granted that the external
world exists and that one can rationally understand it. Though a skeptic, in a
slight sense, because he was first to show the “problem of induction.” (I.E.
Any conclusion which cannot be logically deduced and which therefore requires
inductive reasoning–making one or more ultimately non-provable assumptions
about uniformity in the natural world–cannot be regarded as truth-preserving.
Incidentally much of our knowledge consists in inductive conclusions. However,
for Hume, this did not require outright skepticism with regard to knowledge. In
Kant’s journey to explain how humanity fused knowledge and reasoned knowledge,
he did not publish any work in philosophy for 11 years. Kant argues that the
human mind creates the structure of human experience, that reason is the source
of morality, that aesthetics arises from a faculty of disinterested judgment,
that space and time are forms of human sensibility, and that the world as it is
“in-itself” is independent of humanity’s concepts of it.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Kant’s
philosophy is based on a belief that reason is the final authority for
morality. He believed that any action must take place from a rationalized
standpoint, so anything done for one’s own means or out of some sort of compliance
as moral. To be moral the behavior must be carried out for honorable reasons. By
Kant’s philosophy if one does not have a code it will be shown in his/her actions,
and our ability to reason is what shows us what our duty is. Kant defined this
reasoning as the hypothetical imperative, meaning “by this that it is a command
of reason that applies only if one desires the goal in question;” and the aforementioned
categorical imperative, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the
same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant based his categorical
imperative on morality and stated: “Act as if the maxim of your action
were to become through your will and general natural law.” In layman’s
terms, a person must determine what rules they are following, and if that rule
should be followed by everyone before taking any action. “If you are willing to
universalize the act, it must be moral; if you are not, then the act is morally
impermissible.”