Imperative Essay

Kant's Categorical Imperative
Kant's theory of ethics, known as the categorical imperative, is an absolutist theory. This means
that if something is wrong then it is always wrong. For example, if suicide is wrong then it is still
wrong even if an elderly person at the end of their life is asking for assisted suicide. Kant's theory is
also deontological which means that it is linked to the morality of duty. We all have a duty and that
is to obey the categorical imperative. An action can only be correct if we do it out of duty. The
categorical imperative has three formulations. The first formulation is to "always act so that you can
consistently will that the maxim of your action become a universal moral law for all humankind."
This means that one should act upon a maxim...show more content...
Though the action can be universalized she is being used as a means to an end (i.e. she is being
used to support the homeless). If she would have paid attention to what I said and came to her
own judgement of wanting to help the homeless because it will help others, the action would be
moral. The third and final formulation is the kingdom of ends. Kant states the following
conclusion "Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a
legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends." Simply put, exceptions cannot be made for
certain individuals. To conclude, I would have to say that this theory is not plausible in today's
world. The Categorical Imperative is too rigid to be a workable system – it just doesn't take into
account the complexity of human beings and their relationships. It does remind me, somewhat, of
the guiding principles of Christianity. The Bible states "So whatever you wish that others would do
to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." Granted, we should all strive to do the
right thing in every situation – sometimes people lie to spare someone's feelings or steal food to curb
starvation. I would like to entertain this theory as possible; however, I cannot see it as a
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Kant's Categorical Argument Essay
Kant's Categorical Argument
Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the late 18th century and was arguably one
of the greatest thinkers of all time. He came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to the
ontological theory. Many people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life.
The topic I shall be discussing is Kant's categorical imperative and the utilitarian's greatest happiness
idea. There are significant problems with both ideas. It is apparent however, that alternatives to these
two conflicting schools of thought have been offered. One popular criticism of utilitarianism is that
it deals too much with the consequences of one's actions, and the same for Kant except...show more
content...
When we act, whether or not we achieve what we intend with our action is often beyond our control
and the morality of our actions cannot depend on their outcome. What we can control however is
the will behind these actions. That is we can will to act according to one law rather than another.
The morality of an action therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it and not
the consequences associated with it. According to Kant the only thing that is good without reason is
the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it produces.
Courage, health, and wealth can all be used for the wrong purposes Kant argues, and therefore
cannot be "intrinsically" good. Happiness is not intrinsically good because even being worth of
happiness Kant says, requires that one possess a good will. The good will is the only unconditional
good.
Goodness cannot come from acting on impulse. It can only come from doing an action in a certain
way. We might be tempted to think that some movements that make actions good and have a
positive goal –to make people happy – are then moral. But this is not so Kant says if the act is not
done with the right motive.

Categorical Imperatives
Immanuel Kant's goal was to ground morality in human reason rather than another source. Kant
believed that through reason we can find a supreme moral principle. This foundational principle is
from what morality grows. Diving deeper Kant explains that morality is about fulfilling one's duties.
Thus meaning a person's intentions makes an action moral, immoral or amoral. These actions are
split into three types of actions
1.) Contrary to duty(immoral)
2.) In accordance with duty for some other reason(Amoral)
Fear of punishment
Ulterior motive
3.) Action done from duty(Moral)
Our duty comes from either perfect duty or imperfect duty. Perfect duty is negatively worded
almost always asking to refrain from a certain action that is always obeyed. Imperfect duty is
positively worded where we choose when and where the duty applies because the duty requires
action on our part. Duties then lead to imperatives which are commands. There are two types of
imperatives:...show more content...
For example if one wants to play the piano well then one should practice.
Categorical Imperatives which are moral commands that must be followed no matter what and are
derived from reason. For example, do not kill.
What Kant is looking for is a supreme moral principle otherwise know as The categorical imperative
which holds within it categorical imperatives. So in order to know if something is moral we can
understand categorical imperatives through 4 formulations which are:
Humanity: Never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a
mere means
Autonomy: Act through your maxims you could be a legislator of universal laws.
Kingdom of ends: "act in accordance with the maxims of a member giving universal laws for a
merely possible kingdom of ends"(Johnson, Kant's Moral

Kant and the Categorical Imperative Essay
Kant and the Categorical Imperative
Kant tried to develop a theory of ethics which relied on reason rather than emotion. While he was not
anti–religious, he wanted an ethical system which was not clouded by religion, emotion or personal
interpretation. He placed emphasis on motives behind an action rather than, like the Utilitarians, the
consequences of an action. He believed that consequences were no guide to whether an action was
moral or not. His theory is known as deontological, or duty–based, where ends can never justify the
means.He believed that there were general rules which must be adhered to in every circumstance.
He called these absolute rules of what is good or bad 'Categorical...show more content...
For example, to tell your sister that she looks good in a dress – which does not in fact suit her – just
to make her feel better about herself, would be lying, however good the motive behind it. Not
lying, to Kant, is an absolute imperative and he uses a priori reasoning to come to this conclusion.
These moral rules are as reliable as mathematical proofs because they derive from first principles.
Only free agents (people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions) can make moral
decisions. There must be an element of choice – the choice to do good or bad. He assumed that we
are all free agents. An action can only possess moral value when it is done for is own sake, for
duty's sake, and not for the pleasure of the individual or in the hope of gaining specific outcomes.
(Part B): Taken at face value, one could argue that "Categorical Imperatives allow no room for
compassion in the treatment of women wanting abortions." This is because categorical imperatives
are absolute rules which cannot be altered to suit an individual. To Kant, murder is always wrong
and this would be the categorical imperative. Kant would have to be persuaded that this categorical
imperative cannot be said to cover every abortion.
If it could be argued that a human life does not begin at the moment of conception but, say, after 8
weeks, the categorical imperative could be said not to

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant Categorical Imperative Essay
I.Introduction
My name is Diamante Sullivan and today I will be dissecting Immanuel Kant's Categorical
imperative, and explaining what it is to act from a good will. I will also explain the differences
between the categorical imperative, and the hypothetical imperative. I will do this in order to
execute a reasoned and justified critique of Immanuel Kant's ideas and also illustrate alternative
philosophical arguments.
II. Synopsis of the categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant a philosopher who lived in the 17th– 18th century, created a standard to which we as
rational beings should live by known as the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is a
stringent set of guidelines to which we must operate by in order to...show more content...
Immanuel Kant was stringent in his philosophical beliefs that we as autonomous beings should
per sue universal maxims as law, in order to be virtuous and live a good life. The main difference
between the categorical imperative and hypothetical imperative is the hypothetical imperative
ethics, incorporated ideas such as things are situationally right and wrong actions (Johnson).
While hypothetical imperative views considered principles such as means to ends, it did not
consider the duty aspect in which Kant believed was the most important ideological principle in
maximizing utility. Kant believed the duty in itself should be sacred, in which we as rational
beings overcome our physical presence and perform actions for the ends in themselves. In a
hypothetical imperative situation it would be permissible to tell a lie to a murderer, to protect a
fellow family member. While Kant stated it is never okay, as we lesson the murderer's humanity.
Immanuel Kant will forever be remembered for his absolutism mind frame, and while I disagree I
commend his work, to achieve the best life possible for

Analysing The Supreme Principle Of Morality
Analysing the Supreme Principle of Morality
In Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he aims to identify and establish
"the supreme principle of morality" (4:392). In other words, his work sets out to demonstrate the
function of what Kant calls the "Categorical imperative". The purpose of this essay is to first
explain the conception of Kant's Categorical imperative. It will then discuss the application of this
within his Universal Law formulation, as well as within the formula of Humanity. Finally, it will
investigate and critique the inconsistency of Kant's Categorical imperative theory.
Before one can discuss how the Categorical imperative works in its main formulations, it is
important to understand the basis of what it is. To open, Kant explains thatmorality can be addressed
as an imperative–this is a proposition which declares an action to be obligatory. There are, however,
two types of imperatives underlined in the work, but only one which deals with morality.
(1)Hypothetical imperative
(2)Categorical imperative
(1) is a command that deals with if an individual's desire to attain a certain end. For example, if
you want to acquire knowledge, then you must learn. This imperative can always be posed in the
form of "if you want (x), then you must do (y)". However, hypothetical imperatives are not moral
commands because it is concerned purely with personal desire, and lacks necessity. On the other
hand, (2) is not dependent on subjective desire.

Example Of Imperative Logic
A dilemma has been raised by Gorgen Gorgensen pertinent to the possibility of imperative logic.
Imperative sentence such as 'shut the door' is neither true nor false. It makes no sense to ask of an
imperative sentence whether it is true or false, they are not truth–apt. Hence imperatives can be
considered neither premises nor conclusions of an argument. But, despite this fact, we can
construct imperative argument. These two reverse conditions pose a dilemma as Gorgensen puts
it 'So we have the following puzzle: According to a generally accepted definition of logical
inference only sentences which are capable of true or false can function as premises or conclusion
in an inference, nevertheless it seems evident that a conclusion in the imperative mood may be
drawn from two premises one of which or both of which are in the imperative mood. How is this
puzzle to be dealt with?'(Gorgensen: 1938: 289) The dilemma here is between the followings: (C1)
validity requires the premises and conclusion of an argument must be truth–apt, that is there are no
valid arguments containing imperatives, and (C2) there are valid arguments containing imperatives.
Let us...show more content...
E.g. 'The house is on fire' becomes 'Fire', and without losing its functional quality of being true or
false...A command is here regarded as simply the more serious ellipsis of omitting the entire
penalty clause of the described class of disjunctions, again without sacrificing the truth rules of a
disjunction which, however, remain clear, of course, only if the penalty is understood. 'Run', then,
is permitted to be considered true if the exhorted one stays and burns, where the indicative 'you run'
would be false." (Bohnert: 1945: 303) Hare admits that his endeavor is a good one to reduce
imperatives into indicatives. But this reduction is limited to only simple imperative word like 'run'
or simple imperative sentence like 'go

What Is Kant's Categorical Imperative
In order to evaluate whether one's actions are moral, we use many moral dilemmas. One of them is
Kant's categorical imperative. This essay presents Kant's project of categorical imperative. Then, I
will explain that rulers should appeal to Kant's categorical imperative when making foreign policy
decision. In order to support my point of view, I will give importance to the reasons of why rulers
appeal to categorical imperative when making foreign policy, so I have two reasons for this. One of
them is that states depend on each other in economically and politically. Thus, in order to provide
this stability which means that continue to stay among other states, states should act through the
principles of categorical imperative which are...show more content...
In order to explain the first reason of why rulers should appeal to categorical imperative when
making foreign policy decisions, we can think about the growing trade between the states. States
become more interdependent when trades among various states expand. Interdependence is not
only important economically but also politically because all economic or business activity
depends on political positions of the states. When states trade between each other, they become
mutually dependent on each other's political advantages. Also, world markets are influenced by
politics and state's power in the world markets depends on its foreign policy. So, states should
establish good relations with other states. For this reason, when making foreign policy decisions,
ruler should appeal to categorical imperative. Firstly, rulers' actions must be universally valid. If
state's foreign decisions are internally valid, then state cannot benefit from this politically and
economically. For example, if the state decide to change the price of its export goods up without
approval of other states, then states could not sell its goods whose price increase, because other
states want to buy the same goods from another country whose price is cheaper. Second point is that
if state's intention is bad and this kind of intention is understood by other states, this state is
reproached by other states, which have a relation with this state. As a result of

Kant's Deontology
1.0 Understanding Ethics
We think we know the difference between right and wrong, don't we? Where the idea of right and
wrong comes from is a question that stems from a branch of philosophy known as ethics. Ethics can
be really hard to define, since what we think is right, or ethical, might be very different from what
our friends or family members think.
However, ethics can be loosely defined as the part of philosophy that deals with good and evil.
Ethics tries to answer questions like:
пЃ¶What actions are good? What actions are evil?
пЃ¶How can we tell the difference?
пЃ¶Are good and evil the same?
пЃ¶How should we make hard decisions that might help or hurt other people?
пЃ¶How do our actions affect others? The problem is, everyone's...show more content...
People were beginning to rely on the principles of natural law, which states that there is a right
and a wrong and that we must use reason, or our personal sense of logic, to figure out the
difference. During this time, a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant developed a branch of
ethics that was solely based upon one's sense of duty to act in the way we see as right. Kant's
deontology is guided by an individual's own personal sense of morality, or what is right and what is
wrong to us.
Kant's deontology, sometimes called deontological ethics, starts by acknowledging that actions and
their outcomes are independent things. Basically, there are things you have to do, even though you
know they are wrong, such as shooting that intruder to protect your family. According to deontology,
you need to focus on the act, such as protecting your family, and not the likely death it will mean for
the intruder.
4.0 Teleology vs. Deontology
Teleological ethics is based on a desirable end. The word 'teleology' comes from the word 'telos' in
Greek which means outcome or

Examples Of The Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy is mostly remembered for its central thesis, the Categorical
Imperative. According to Kant, rational beings experience the moral law as a categorical imperative.
The Categorical imperative commands universally and unconditionally, from which all duties are
derived. Kant articulates the categorical imperative through several formulations. The most
prominent formulations of the Categorical Imperative are known as the Formula of Universal Law
(C1), the humanity formulation of categorical imperative (C2) and the kingdom formulation of
categorical imperative (C3). The general thought of C1 is to demand that one act only on the basis
of maxims that one can will as universal laws. The second formulation commands respect...show
more content...
For instance, non–formalists read Kant as departing from formalism due to C2, given Kant's
expression that there must be ''something the existence of which in itself has an absolute worth.''
(Gr 82). By a process of elimination, that something must be persons by virtue of their capacity for
rational agency; the absolute worth of persons or rational agents comprises an independent order of
value which grounds the moral law. On the other hand, Kant is read as a moral formalist due to C1
and C3. In the first case, Kant is understood as saying that there is a procedure for testing maxims to
determine their universality thereby con–structing rational maxims. Alternatively, according to C3,
Kant is understood as saying that the stance of the members of an ideal kingdom of ends defines
what is right. This view holds that ''morality consists, then, in the reference of all action to the law
giving by which alone a kingdom of ends is possible'' (Gr 4:435). However, such a kingdom is
''admittedly only an ideal'' (Gr 83/4:433). The members of such a merely ideal realm would
construct the laws for themselves that ultimately bind all of us. For example, ideal legislators pass
ideal laws that impose moral behavior. However, the content of the moral law itself is not implicitly

Kant's Categorical Formulations
Formulations 1 and 2 from Kant's 'categorical imperative' refer to actions to need be universalised
and treating people as ends, rather than means to ends. Formulation 3 states; everything you do
or and every action you commit , you must picture yourself as a person writing the law for a new
kingdom, in which everybody must treat everybody else as ends, rather than means. You can't
therefore make a law hypocritically, such as 'I'm going to lie but just this once and other people
shouldn't lie and I won't lie again'. You also cannot also establish a law in your ' new kingdom'
that applies to everyone else but yourself, such as 'I can lie because everybody lies' the lies you tell
therefore making people around you means to an end as the rule

Kant's Controversy
An Individual's autonomy can be altered or swayed by many different life circumstances, stages of
human life, religion or faith and its many practices as well as mental capacity and comprehension. In
regards to my own understanding towards the required reading it gives many compare and contrast
between similar yet controversial topics one being of faith and religion another being that of an
individual that is experiencing the manic phase of bipolar disorder. Compared to one of Jehovah's
Witness' whom is making a decision based on a scriptural doctrine. The examples and practices of
these two opposite and controversial topics have absolutely nothing to do with each other, however, I
understand how an individual uneducated about the faith can be baffled.
Kants' belief system appears as very logical in the sense we cannot have a full understanding of
information we are essentially unaware of due to the fact that knowledge doesn't absorb into our
consciousness from osmosis. The mind is a very powerful muscle and is capable of...show more
content...
One of Jehovah's Witness refusing the transmission of blood based on scriptural doctrine to abstain
from blood not due to being bipolar experiencing a manic episode is a conscious matter not a
chemically induced one. To also note the Kantian theory is the idea of a higher moral principle of
what is truly right and wrong. Intriguingly enough ones moral compass or belief system can be
retailored due to life circumstances. That another individual cannot give their own experiences too
because they have not lived for the original person. Therefore, as long as what someone does isn't
harming another human being and is not inhuman to themselves why should any outside party
attempt to alter the decision of an

Categorical Imperative Essay
Having argued for the view that hypothetical imperatives are wrong, I now wish to consider rival
views. The other imperative that Kant talks about is the categorical imperative; wish is known to
be the right one. "Categorical, or unqualified, imperatives are the right kind of imperatives,
because they show proper recognition of the imperial status of moral obligation" (pg. 128). Kant
named it, categorical imperatives (CI), which according to Kant is a strategy for control of
morality in any course of movement. The CI consists of a couple steps that I will explain below:
First step is to find a maxim, which is also known to be the general rule. Meaning, say you were in
the spirit to help someone who was in need. The maxim would be to help the person, but to have
no load of weight on your shoulders by helping them. The second step consists to see if the maxim
affects everyone. If the steps can be made available, then we obtain the maxim, and it is considered
to be moral. If they are not...show more content...
129). The core of this concoction of the CI is the desire of a rebuttal, in which has been debated in
what Kant had in mind. The first law is logical contradiction, where the given movement would
clearly be unimaginable. Secondly, Kant might have meant it to be teleological contradiction.
Teleological contradiction is where the top most couldn't be able to work in a functioning manner
lawfully in a well–regulated system of nature. The third one Kant mentioned was the practical
contradiction, where my activity wouldn't be affective in trying to achieve motivation, if everyone
wanted to use if for that same purpose. "Kant illustrates how the CI principle of the law of nature
works by applying it to each of these maxims" (pg.130). Not only does Kant talk about the
principles of nature and the CI, but he also explains what a lying promise

Why Is Motivation So Imperative? Essay
When you wake up in the morning, what is the passion that fuels you to make today special? The
triggers that motivate employees are completely different for everyone. Many people are motivated
by fame, money, cars, clothing, etc. Regardless of what may motivate people, motivation must be
balanced throughout the workplace (Forbes). Keeping employees motivated is a crucial element in
order to retain the best employees in the company.
Why is motivation so imperative in the workplace? There are numerous reasons why companies
should have a motivated workforce. Motivated employees will not only work quicker, but they will
also use creativity to help the organization save millions of dollars by implementing new ideas. For
many years, motivation has been studied in depth. Tests such as the Myers–Briggs to determine the
personality type that an employee has. These particular test can be very helpful, the main factors
that motivate employees to achieve change as they mature and begin to understand what matter the
most in their personal lives. Motivation plays a key role in developing leaders in the workplace
(Forbes). In order to develop leaders in the workplace, managers must lead by example. If upper
management shows excitement towards meeting new goals and increasing productivity in the
company, everyone will be on the same page and will play their role on the team.
Meanwhile, there are two different types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is
motivation

Kant And Respect
Kant did not simply certify that persons are qualified for respect; he gave an involved conflict for
that conclusion. Persons ought to be respected in light of the way that persons have pride. Laborers
have a respectability that machines and capital don't have (Beauchamp, Bowie, N. E., and Arnold, D.
G, 2004). In this light, multi–national organizations ought to protect the prosperity of every one of
its specialists everywhere throughout the world and guarantee that the work and wage directions are
being taken after. Completing social activity to ensure the prosperity of some person whose rights
are being damaged is similarly right and in this way ought not be seen as method for upsetting the

This principle is referred to as Kant's practical imperative and is an important principle for an
ethical system which says that each human being is an end in himself or herself. No human being
should be thought of or used merely as a means for someone else end. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand the main
protagonist of "The Insider" portrays himself to be a conflicted individual as he makes decisions
throughout the movie. Against an undetermined future, he ruminates about what he knows is right
for example, receiving threats, the phone ringing at odd hours. He makes most of his decisions by
weighing the cost and benefits, which may be referred to as Kant's principle the "end justifies the
means".Analysis of Wigand if he had to disclose the information...show more content...
The Kantian perspective would consider Lowell actions to be unethical, as he encourage another
person to break his promise for a greater of social good. Lowell knows the extent of the pleasure, but
not the pain. The benefits of his encouragement would uphold the honor of 60 minutes and CBS
news, protecting the public against harm. The disadvantages and the cost would result in Wigand
and his family losing all benefits from the agreement. The possible lawsuit faced against CBS and
damages to the tobacco industry and its employees. If he does not encourage Wigand, its just result
in vice versa, he would receive the benefits and the tobacco industry and employees are protected. It
would costs harm to public if they do not know the truth. In conclusion it can be seen that both
Wigand and Bergman used each other as means to one anothers end.
Not actually being in his position it would be difficult to decide to what my actual emotions would
be, based on the fact that I would be putting my family in danger to protect the public. I would have
probably done the same as it would be my moral obligation and the right thing to do. Kant's
duty–based ethics says that some acts are wrong or right because of the things or situations that are
related and people have a duty to act in accordance, regardless of the good or bad consequences that
may be produced.
Dr. Wigand decision is an example of goodwill as he disregarded the concern of consequences of his
and his

The Groundwork takes up a big question: What is the supreme principle of morality? (Michael J.
Sandel, 2009). Besides this question, I am going to consider the following questions: What is the
categorical imperative? The difference between categorical and hypothetical imperatives. What is
morality from Kant's point of view? And of course, the main question of this essay – Will the
categorical imperative apply to all kinds of moral problems?
In the Groundwork Kant criticized utilitarianism: morality is not about maximizing happiness or any
other end, it is about respecting persons as ends in themselves (Michael J. Sandel, 2009). Kant
connects justice and morality to freedom. He rejects utilitarianism. According to Kant utilitarianism
leaves rights vulnerable. Kant emphasizes, I also agree...show more content...
Sandel, 2009).
To define "freedom" Kant contrasts two notions: autonomy and heteronomy. To act autonomously is
to act according to law I give myself – not according to the dictates of nature or social convention.
To act heteronomously is to act according to determinations given outside of me. We can talk about
moral responsibility if there is an autonomous act.
According to Kant, the moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences that flow from it,
but in the intention from which the act is done. The motive that confers moral worth on an action is
the motive of duty. Motive of duty means doing the right thing for the right reason. Only actions
done out of the motive of duty have moral worth.
Categorical imperative is the notion in Kant's moral philosophy which can be defined as the highest
principle of morality. The notion of categorical imperative was introduced by Kant in his
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and had been studied in detail in his Critique of Practical

Kant's Ethical Dilemma Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Deontology theories are used to approach the ethical dilemmas that continually challenge
decision–makers, aiming to reach a reasoned, rational, and logical justification at the moment of
taking the decision that bear in mind the stakeholders' interests.
The paper will demonstrate the Kantian Deontology theory as a driver to rationalize decision in an
ethical dilemma.
DILEMMA
The personal dilemma I faced concerned reaching a decision that conflicted with my obligation
and duty as a manager and embracing the benevolence as a human being. During my career, I was
holding the position of IT team leader for 8 in a hectic port operation, which necessitates 24/7 IT
support. We were one good family. One day I received a call from one of the team members saying
that he received a job opportunity. Further, he is...show more content...
Surprisingly, He requested my support to return to his position. I was utterly shocked by his demand
after the way he resigned, I refused his request fearing of encouraging the team to follow the same
attitude, besides, the team commented on his unethical behaviour.
THEORY
Kant's ethics formulation is based on categorical imperatives (CI) that bind us to fulfil our duty
regardless of our desires, circumstances, and even interests. These imperatives are based on reasons
or motives to act benevolently. Decision–makers have an obligation to sue rational decisions by
virtue of being rational agents. CI tackle universalizability, humanity as an end in itself, the formula
of autonomy, and the Kingdom of Ends. Merely, an action must pass the three imperatives to be
taken, and people are acting purely morally based on rational will in lieu external influences.
As per Kant, Ellington and Kant (1993), The CI three variations are:–
1–"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal

Jeff Bezos the CEO and founder of Amazon has a unique work ethic, and one he demands his
employees uphold as well. He believe in the conventional ideals of hard work and dedication, but
to him they take on a whole new meaning. However, according to Jodi Kantor and David
Streitfeld; Bezos is seeing just how far he can push white collars workers before they break. Looking
through the lens of Immanuel Kant's respect for person ideology I will evaluate the morality of what
Amazon is doing to its workers.
In the article "Respecting the humanity in a person" Bowie brings up Kant's argument about
treating people with respect and dignity. Kant says "Act so that you treat humanity whether, in your
own person or in that of another, always as an end never as a means only." By saying this he is
encouraging people to be thoughtful and considerate of others no matter the setting in which you
find yourself and them in. Because people are self–governing, reasonable, autonomous beings;
people are worthy of respect. In this paper while addressing most of the points this statement makes,
I will be focusing most prominently on the last part of Kant's quote; "Always as an end, never
merely as a means only".
The reason Bezos is coming under fire in the New York Times...show more content...
If they hadn't Amazon would be out of workers by now. Secondly, because we cannot go on a case
by case basis for the thousands of employees that Amazon has; we are going to assume none of
them were coerced. The United States has many other opportunities available for those well
qualified. Furthermore, Amazon only accepts those it deems highly qualified; therefore, for the
purpose of this paper we will assume that no employee was coerced. Indeed former employees in the
article admit to having other opportunities career wise, but selected Amazon because they
"internalized Amazon's principals" (pg.

Kant 's First Categorical Imperative
I will not use a person 's information for my own profit without his consent. (1) According to
Kant's first categorical imperative, the formula of the universal law, "Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Korsgaard)
(2) Kant stated that people should act from the maxim or their own personal rule. (3) Therefore,
under the rule, using a person's information for profit without his consent is an irrational action, so
it is unethical. (4) According to Kant's second categorical imperative, the formula of the end in
itself, "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end". (Birsch 6) (5)
Kant states that all people are autonomous and it is irrational and wrong if someone use a person as a
tool to accomplish his goal. (6) A person is not a lifeless tool and should not be used without his
consent, ever and everyone must be free to choose assist other person not. Therefore, under the
Kant's first and second categorical imperative, it is unethical to use a person's information for profit
without his consent. I also believe it is fine to attack the terrorist's account and crack their encrypted
information. In Act Utilitarianism Theory, there are four factors will involve the evaluation: extent,
intensity, duration, and certainty. (1) According to Bentham's ethical theory, Act Utilitarianism,

Imperative Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writing Service Superiorpapers

More from Paper Writing Service Superiorpapers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Imperative Essay