Can judging something as right of wrong be
based on the extent to which duty is best served?
Duty is at the core of Kantian ethics, but it is an illogical principle to base
ethical decisions on. This is because not only duty itself, but how it is
derived are flawed concepts and should not be the only idea that ethical
decisions should be made on.
PARAGRAPH 1
Duty for Kant is not doing something because we have been told to,
by society or law, but doing something because we simply must,
linking to the good will
The way duty is derived is through synthetic a priori reasoning like
geometry, the fact a triangle is a shape with three sides is a
necessary fact, but it is also empirically verified and would not be
seen to be true without our understanding of geometry
This means that the conclusion of duty is not only a rational one, as
it is reached through a priori reasoning, but is also synthetically
validated meaning it seems to be a logical principle
The truth of a priori reasoning can be questioned, if humans can
always reach different conclusions whilst all claiming to be
reasoning correctly, maybe the rational method is not as helpful as
previously thought
This reasoning also cannot always be empirically verified, despite
being a synthetic statement, if morality belongs to the noumenal
world how can we see that the information added is true?
The concept of duty is incredibly abstract and due to this it is
difficult to trust decisions made on this principle, unlike utility, it is
not something that can be easily seen in the real world
Furthermore, basing actions only on the principle of duty makes
humans one dimensional and disregards the other factors of human
experience, linking to Humes sentimentalism: reason is a slave of
the passions
PARAGRAPH 2
If accepted, the formulation of deciding what is duty is also flawed
based on the extent to which duty is best served?
Duty is at the core of Kantian ethics, but it is an illogical principle to base
ethical decisions on. This is because not only duty itself, but how it is
derived are flawed concepts and should not be the only idea that ethical
decisions should be made on.
PARAGRAPH 1
Duty for Kant is not doing something because we have been told to,
by society or law, but doing something because we simply must,
linking to the good will
The way duty is derived is through synthetic a priori reasoning like
geometry, the fact a triangle is a shape with three sides is a
necessary fact, but it is also empirically verified and would not be
seen to be true without our understanding of geometry
This means that the conclusion of duty is not only a rational one, as
it is reached through a priori reasoning, but is also synthetically
validated meaning it seems to be a logical principle
The truth of a priori reasoning can be questioned, if humans can
always reach different conclusions whilst all claiming to be
reasoning correctly, maybe the rational method is not as helpful as
previously thought
This reasoning also cannot always be empirically verified, despite
being a synthetic statement, if morality belongs to the noumenal
world how can we see that the information added is true?
The concept of duty is incredibly abstract and due to this it is
difficult to trust decisions made on this principle, unlike utility, it is
not something that can be easily seen in the real world
Furthermore, basing actions only on the principle of duty makes
humans one dimensional and disregards the other factors of human
experience, linking to Humes sentimentalism: reason is a slave of
the passions
PARAGRAPH 2
If accepted, the formulation of deciding what is duty is also flawed
