For Kant, how are moral principles developed: Make sure to answer the following questions

Part 1

1. For Kant, how are moral principles developed?    

Moral principles, according to Immanuel Kant, derive from either reason or categorical imperatives (Timmons, 2012).The first source of moral principle is human reason. Human beings have the ability to make choices based on an iterative mode of thinking. This thinking, according to Kant, is the practical reasoning, or rationalism that determines whether actions are right or wrong. The categorical imperative maxim states that moral actions are either or wrong based on their conformance to an unconditionally worthy or valuable source (Timmons, 2012). The source could be a law or a dictate by a supernatural authority.

1. Do you think that human reason is better than human emotion, when deciding moral issues?

Human reason is better than human emotion while making a moral judgment. Reasoning allows one to predict the outcome of an action while emotion does not. Moreover, reasoning offers a chance to look at alternatives and decide on the option that would be most beneficial to the person or other people. Emotions, on the other hand, may result in actions that may regrettable. Admittedly, employing emotion will only allow actions that offer instant gratification without considering the long-term effect on an individual or society.

1. What are the possible negative effects with a rule that eliminates any possibility of lying?

In Kantian ethics, the Universal Law Formulation embodies two tests that help classify duties as perfect or imperfect (Timmons, 2012). One of the tests, in this case, is the false-promising case. False promises violate a perfect duty, meaning that lies are detrimental to ethical conduct. In the case of false promises, a person may lack a certain necessity while striving to be true. In other words, lies are necessary for meeting certain ends. Therefore, a rule that eliminates the possibility of lying denies people necessary items without which their lives would be uncomfortable.

1. Based on human reason, what do you think you owe other human beings?

As a rational being, I am responsible for being truthful to other people. I owe other human beings accountable and honest information at all times. Additionally, I owe other people the space to exercise their rights. In other words, I should not act in a manner that denies other people freedom. For instance, people have the right to movement, I, therefore, should avoid erecting barriers that will restrict movement. Reason dictates that I should avail myself for consultation by other people. Therefore, I owe other human beings company and correspondence on various matters.

1. What are the possible moral implications of any moral theory that argues that the means justify the ends?

Some moral theories state that the ends of a particular process are important than the means. These moral theories encourage wrongdoing in the name of justifying the end. For example, when saving a life, these theories would encourage harm to the environment as long as a person lives. In a nutshell, such theories would leave a trail of destruction as people pursue the ultimate goal.

Part 2

1. How does John Stuart Mill argue that humans are different than other animals?

John Stuart Mill was one of the most vehement proponents of the utilitarian tenet of moral philosophy. In his work, he criticized Jeremy Bentham’s theory of quantitative hedonism through the doctrine of swine objection. Bentham had earlier argued that pain and pleasure were the objective measures of happiness. Mill argued that these emotions are only characteristics of animals. Unlike animals that derived happiness from mundane activities like eating and playing, human beings have higher intellectual functions. Additionally, human beings have aesthetic endeavors and the capability to pursue moral conduct (Timmons, 2012).

1. What is the classical utilitarian calculation?

The classical utilitarian calculation is a model perpetuated by Bentham in his quantitative hedonism. In this calculation, feelings of pleasure and pain are assigned absolute units that help to quantify the amount of happiness that a person has experienced. The units are selected to ensure that the intensity and duration of the emotions are quantifiable (Timmons, 2012). The higher the measure of pain, the lower the experience of pleasure. The overall quantity of pleasurable and painful moments will help to measure how happy an individual is.

1. How does John Stuart Mill modify this calculation?

Mill objected to this calculation by asserting that both qualitative and quantitative measures provide a realistic picture of happiness. The nature of Bentham’s version of utilitarianism is that it reduces human experiences to pain and pleasure (Timmons, 2012). Additionally, Mill argues that pleasure has an intrinsic value that is not subject to quantification. Therefore, it is not logical to count pleasure or allocate a numerical value denoting the intensity or duration of a pleasurable experience. Moreover, there is no pleasure that is better than another. Human beings experience pleasure on the same scale. Anything that is not pleasure, according to Mill, is pain; and anything that is not pain is pleasure.

1. Why is it better to be a dissatisfied Socrates than a satisfied fool, according to John Stuart Mill?

The Epicurean tradition maintained that “happiness favored the wise over the foolish” (Rosen, 2005). Mills held a contrary opinion that the wise were dissatisfied or unhappy while the fools were satisfied. Indeed, satisfaction eliminates the chances of success in the future. According to mill, it is better for a wise man to stay dissatisfied in the present while pursuing satisfaction in the present. A satisfied fool seeks happiness for himself and ignores the tribulations of others. A dissatisfied Socrates, on the other hand, gives up his happiness for the good of others. Dissatisfied Socrates help improve the lives of others by making laws that promote justice, independence, liberty, and human dignity (Rosen, 2005).

1. What are the possible moral implications for any moral theory that argues that the ends justify the means?

In the utilitarian perspective, theories that promote the notion that the ends justify the means have significant moral implications. The utilitarian principle states that happiness for the highest number of people is the ultimate measure of the morality of an action. If the end of an action only impresses one individual and causes misery to others, both the end and the means to this end are immoral. A moral theory that promotes the commission of an error towards a plausible good can cause suffering to an individual or the people whose happiness is traded for that of a single person.

Final Remarks

Does it still feel hard? Well, you can get original answers if you hire me today. Hire me to do Philosophy homework  for you at a reasonable cost. As a Doctor of Philosophy, I know that you will keep coming back for more once you taste the quality of my work. See you soon!