Kant Moral Ethics Essay Example for Free

Kant Moral Ethics Essay Immanuel Kants moral theory can be best explained by comparing it to a math equation. Kants moral system will always hold true no matter what the circumstance just like how two plus two will always equal four. According to Kant, our lives should be lived according to maxims that can be willed into universal law (Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 303). However the action regarding a moral decision is not judged by the consequences of that action, rather by the motive of that action. Kants the method of moral reasoning starts off by first realizing the principle the rational agent is acting under. To fully understand what this means, a rational agent is to be defined as an entity who is capable of making rational decisions regardless of their natural inclinations. This condition excludes such examples as, animals, infants, and people in a coma from being considered to be a rational agent because they do not show the capacity to reason. After realizing the principle the person is acting under, determine if the reason is morally right. In order to determine if the maxim is ethical and able to be willed into universal law, it must pass three tests: autonomy, respect for humanity, and the kingdom of ends. Autonomy describes the feeling of accomplishment. This can be illustrated as a man who promises his wife that he will take off the weekend from golfing and file their tax reports. By keeping his promise to his wife he not only feels the satisfaction from finishing their tax report but also, more importantly feels good about following through with his promise. Autonomy is important because if the husband breaks his promises and lives his life as a promise breaker then this maxim is clearly self-defeating. The entire maxim of promising to break promises does not pass the test of autonomy therefore could never be passed as a universal law. However, if after passing the autonomy test, then a principle must also respect everyone elses autonomy. In order to respect humanity, make decisions that show an overall concern for rational agents. If by treating them as a rational agent, then the principle will not affect another persons ability rationalize. In order to do this, it is never acceptable to treat a rational being as merely a means (Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p 307). That is to say, the act of rape treats the rational agent as a means to sexual gratification. The act of rape does not respect the agent as a rational being and could never be willed into a moral universal law. However if a principle was able to pass the first two conditions, then it is necessary to subject it to the kingdom of ends test. The kingdom of ends is composed of a group of rational agents all with different objectives in life. The importance of having different objectives in life insures that all perspectives and backgrounds have been covered. These agents have been given the responsibility of creating a free society. A free society entails laws that every rational agent in that society would agree upon. If the principle is not a measure that the kingdom of ends would enact, then the principle, by Kants definition, is immoral. Let us analyze the principle of apathy. Living an apathetic life does indeed pass the test of autonomy and by showing indifference to other rational agents it also passes the test of humanity. However, apathy would not pass the kingdom of ends, as no rational being would accept such a maxim. As a result, an apathetic life could not be passed as universal law. As an example, we will refer back to the persecution of Jews during World War II. Say a man is hiding a Jew in his house and the Gestapo comes knocking on door. However, as the Gestapo questions the man of the whereabouts of the Jew, the man cannot lie and say that no one is hiding within his house, but at the same time, if he were to tell the truth he would be indirectly bringing harm upon himself and the Jew. The man should question the Gestapo about what they plan on doing to the Jew once they have located him. According to Kant, consequences have no relevance, although if all possible consequences were known, then it would be permissible to lightly take them into account. Since telling the truth by giving the Gestapo the whereabouts of the Jew would bring direct harm, it is permissible to lie. The maxim would be to never lie unless the truth results direct or indirect harm. This maxim respects autonomy and human nature and would be pass the kingdom of ends test and thus can be willed into universal moral law. Now take the case of Harry and Sally, according to Kantian moral reasoning, should Sally seduce Harry? If Sally were to seduce Harry by taking him back to her place and having sex with him, she would be using him as a means to her ends. By Sally using Harry simply as a means to achieve her ends, that moral decision is breaking a fundamental Kantian principle. Using people as only a means is never acceptable. The difference between Sally seducing Harry into sex and Sally having consensual sex with Harry is the difference of deception and coercion. According to Mappes, deception and coercion are the methods for sexually using someone (Mappes, Sexual Morality, p. 166). The whole idea is based off the respect for an individual person to voluntarily make their own decisions. By deceiving someone, it is clearly misleading a person to make a decision that they would not have made, had it been on their own regard. However the objection can be made that Sally should do what ultimately brings her pleasure. Using Utilitarian morality, something that results in the greater pleasure, or avoidance of harm, of the populations involved is morally correct. Even though Harry is somewhat apprehensive of the whole casual sex idea, he is not defiant or strongly against it. It can even be reasoned that Harry might even enjoy himself once him and Sally are having sex. And also, casual sex is perfectly okay if there is no lying, deceiving, or exploiting (Elliston, In Defense of Promiscuity, p. 170). I believe Ellistons definition of deceiving is different that Kants definition. Kant covers all and any type of deception as immoral. Elliston agrees that deception is indeed immoral, but his definition of deception would be a man telling a woman he does not have herpes when indeed he does. As long as sex is consensual, there is no harm. Sally would only be seducing Harry back to her house under, say, the premise to watch a movie, however when the actual act of intercourse happens, Harry is not being deceived at all. Even with the arguments above, Sally would ultimately be using Harry simply as a means to achieve her ends of sexual pleasure. By using Kantian morality, Sally should not pressure Harry to going home with her nor should she try to seduce him. Kant reasons that human beings have been given this gift of free will to act as the dividing line between humans and animals. Animals are considered animals because they lack the ability to rationalize. What then, is the ultimate value and purpose of having a free will? If the point of having a free will was to seek pleasure and avoid harm, then we are nothing more than animals and have wasted this ability to reason. Instead, humans have free will so they could follow moral law. Therefore, follow moral law even in situations where social laws or natural inclinations could conflict. By following Kants moral reasoning, what we do in our lives is right not only because we ourselves believe it to be right but also since we have willed it to become universal law, it could not possibly be wrong. The maxims that we base our lives on are intrinsically good because we are able to will it into universal law. Therefore, moral decisions made using Kants ideas can be applied universally. Kants ideas show respect for humanity and peoples decisions are not made for selfish pleasure seeking reasons by treating people as a means, but rather they are made based on universal morals and by treating everybody as an rational agent. By following Kants moral reasoning a rational agent will be able to make the right decision when faced with any type of moral dilemma.

Jimi Hendrix :: essays research papers

Jimi Hendrix, the greatest guitarist in rock history, revolutionized the sound of rock. In 1967, the Jimi Hendrix Experience rocked the nation with their first album, Are You Experienced?. Hendrix's life was cut short by the tragedy of drugs in 1970, when he was only twenty seven years old. In these three years the sound of rock changed greatly, and Hendrix’s guitar playing was a major influence. Jimi was born in Seattle, Washington on November 27, 1942. As a young boy, whenever the chance came, Jimi would try to play along with his R & B records. However, music was not his life long dream. At first, the army was. In the late 1950’s, Hendrix enlisted in the 101st Airborne Division. After sustaining a back injury during a jump, he received a medical discharge. After his army career came to an abrupt end, he decided to go into the music field. By this time he had become an accomplished guitarist, and was soon to become known as the greatest guitarist ever (Stambler, pg. 290). However, he did not start out at the top. Jimi started out playing as part of the back-up for small time R & B groups. It did not take long before his work was in demand with some of the best known artists in the field, such as B.B. King, Ike and Tina Turner, Solomon Burke, Jackie Wilson, Littler Richard, Wilson Pickett, and King Curtis (Clifford, pg. 181). Using the name Jimmy James, he toured with a bunch of R & B shows, including six months as a member of James Brown’s Famous Flames (Stambler, pg. 290). At the Cafe Wha! in New York, in 1966, Hendrix decided to try singing. Jimi lucked out when a man by the name of Charles â€Å"Chas† Chandler from Eric Burdon's Animals heard him at the club and thought he was sensational. When Chas heard him again later that year, he talked Jimi into moving to England where he would really get the chance to start his career (Stambler, pg. 290). Along with Chas, Hendrix auditioned some musicians to complete the new Hendrix group. They choose Mitch Mitchell, a fantastic drummer, and Noel Redding, one of England's best guitar and bass players (Stambler, pg. 290). In 1966, at the Olympia in Paris, the Experience debuted. One year later, the Experience was breaking attendance records right and left at European clubs. When the Monkees toured England in 1967,

Boy in Striped Pyjamas: Otes and Analysis

Area of Study: Belonging Texts of your choosing: Film Title: â€Å"Boy in the striped pyjamas† Composer: Mark Herman A chilling portrayal of the power of society to define belonging, this film depicts the holocaust from the point of view of a young German boy who develops a friendship with a Jewish boy the other side of a barbed wire fence (Auschwitz). A chilling portrayal of the power of society to define belonging, this film depicts the holocaust from the point of view of a young German boy who develops a friendship with a Jewish boy the other side of a barbed wire fence (Auschwitz).Brief Outline to the text: This cautionary tale is about two boys, one the son of a commandant and the other a Jew, who come face-to-face at a barbed wire fence that separates, and eventually intertwines their lives. The novel is set during the Holocaust, Bruno is only nine-years-old when his father is transferred from Berlin to Auschwitz. The house at â€Å"Out-With,† as Bruno calls it, i s small, dark, and strange. He spends long days gazing out the window of his new bedroom, where he notices people dressed in striped pyjamas and rows of barracks surrounded by a barbed wire fence.Bored and lonely, and not really understanding the circumstance of his new existence, Bruno sets out to explore the area and discovers Shmuel, a very thin Jewish boy who lives on the other side of the fence. An unlikely friendship develops between the two boys, but when Bruno learns that his mother plans to take her children back to Berlin, he makes a last effort to explore the forbidden territory where the boy in the striped pyjamas lives.This cautionary tale is about two boys, one the son of a commandant and the other a Jew, who come face-to-face at a barbed wire fence that separates, and eventually intertwines their lives. The novel is set during the Holocaust, Bruno is only nine-years-old when his father is transferred from Berlin to Auschwitz. The house at â€Å"Out-With,† as Br uno calls it, is small, dark, and strange. He spends long days gazing out the window of his new bedroom, where he notices people dressed in striped pyjamas and rows of barracks surrounded by a barbed wire fence.Bored and lonely, and not really understanding the circumstance of his new existence, Bruno sets out to explore the area and discovers Shmuel, a very thin Jewish boy who lives on the other side of the fence. An unlikely friendship develops between the two boys, but when Bruno learns that his mother plans to take her children back to Berlin, he makes a last effort to explore the forbidden territory where the boy in the striped pyjamas lives. Explain the belonging that is represented in the text: Perceptions and ideas of belonging, or of not belonging, vary.These perceptions are shaped within personal, cultural, historical and social contexts. A sense of belonging can emerge from the connections made with people, places, groups, communities and the larger world. People may cons ider aspects of belonging in terms of experiences and notions of identity, relationships, acceptance and understanding. Through Boyne’s novel, the boy in the striped pyjamas it reveals how belonging can enrich our identity and relationships. This would subsequently portray how acceptance and understanding may be obtained through the enrichment of one’s identity.Key examples that develop belonging in the text: â€Å"A home is not a building or a street or a city or something so artificial as bricks and mortar. A home is where one’s family is†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"You're my best friend, Shmuel, My best friend for life. † â€Å"He looked the boy up and down as if he had never seen a child before and wasn’t quite sure what he was supposed to do with one: eat it, ignore it or kick it down the stairs. † â€Å"Are you allowed out? Why? What have you done†¦? â€Å"I’m a Jew† â€Å"We’re not supposed to be friends, you and me. We’re meant to be enemies. Did you know that? * clearly proves that there is a sense of the friends belonging to a relationship however there is always going to be the idea of not belonging to each other because of the cultural and moral situations they are put in, hence why they believe that they are meant to be â€Å"enemies† â€Å"He used to be a doctor once, but gave it all up to peel potatoes. † * The destruction that is caused upon a miserable man, because of the beliefs he has. There is a lack of integrity making him become their slave as he is a Jew   html http://www. enotes. om/the-boy-in-the-striped-pajamas http://www. bookrags. com/studyguide-the-boy-in-the-striped-pyjamas/ The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas is a poignant tale of events, Written by John Boyne and published in 2006 by David Fickling Books, the story was made into a major motion picture in 2008 based on the events occurred during WWII through the eyes of an eight-year-old boy. Bruno i s the bright-eyed son of a German soldier. When Bruno's father is relocated, the entire family has to move to the countryside. Although Bruno is proud that his father is a soldier, he lets his disappointment of leaving his friends show.There is a constant use of dramatic irony, through the idea that Bruno does not understand or know about the life they are entering however there is a common background understanding that all viewers will understand. This is evident when Bruno notices what he believes to be a farm with strange farmers who only wear striped pajamas. Whereas, we understand the reality of it, in which the farm is a concentration camp in which Bruno's father has been put in charge of. Fueled by curiosity, Bruno defies his mother and ends up at a corner of the fence that is not guarded.Once there, he meets Shmuel, a Jewish boy the same age as Bruno. The boys become friends quickly, even though Bruno has been told by his teacher and a frightening young Lieutenant Kotler tha t Jews are â€Å"evil. † Mark Herman, director of films such as Brassed Off and Hope Springs gives us a profound tale of innocence. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas could be the most heartbreaking film about the holocaust since Schindler's List. Although there is no physical violence shown in the movie, outrage at the injustice of it all is still felt; the boys should be able to play with each other without fear of getting in trouble.Children should not have to go through what Shmuel does just because they are different. It is the idea that there is a visual confusion and the dramatic irony is so important in conveying the injustices. There are times when Bruno's courage fails him. When Lieutenant Kotler asks him if he gave Shmuel food, he denies the truth so he won't get in trouble. But the audience can forgive him for these mistakes just as quickly as Shmuel does. With the idea of dramatic irony again, it’s the concept in which the audience takes many journeys of the b oy’s sense of belonging to each other and to their friendship however not belonging as utcasts. Bruno's innocence is what makes The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas so Stirring. When he asks his father what is burned in the chimneys, the audience feels a sense of turmoil because they know the truth. Bruno just doesn't understand what he's seeing. It explores the beauty of a child's innocence in a time of war, the common desire we all have for friendship, and the fences—both literal and figurative—that we must all navigate and choose whether or not to break down.

Comparison of an Evil mastermind in Shakespeare’s Othello...

Iago is one of the most renowned villains of pre-modern literature, as first introduced in Shakespeare’s Othello. His deceiving personality and complex nature is painted such that readers are amazed by his ingenious schemes. At the beginning of Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago is represented as trustworthy and honest, but readers soon realize that he is the opposite of what he seems. Even though Iago’s personality and thoughts are revealed less in MacDonald’s Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet), he carries on the same immoral legacy as in Othello. Throughout the plays, he turns his friends against one another who look to him for guidance and support. Iago thirsts to upgrade this status in society which causes him to take advantage of†¦show more content†¦Iago explains to Rodrigo that he does not serve Othello because it is it duty, he does so because he feels he can exploit and take advantage of him. Iago believes that people who are what they se em are foolish and says that â€Å"I am not what I am†, which implies that he is also playing a deceitful game with Rodrigo. Desdemona in MacDonald’s Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is interpreted as a capable, independent, and even violent character who marries Othello because of her passion for combat and conquest. Desdemona’s character goes beyond the limits of breaking feminine stereotypes and is seen as a savage who hungers violence. As a result of her rage-filled personality, Desdemona is gullible and easily irritated by others. She looks for the evil in others and searches for conflict. â€Å"In this Desdemona, Logos reigns, she exhibits primarily characteristics that we have designated as ‘masculine’: love of horror and a desire for blood, violence, and vengeance† (Snyder 49). Desdemona easily becomes jealous of others, which Iago takes advantage of. The character of Desdemona is seen to break the stereotype of powerless wom en and goes to an extreme of representing Desdemona as a violent female who is easily manipulated. The