Kantian Ethics Research Paper

Kantian Ethics

The relationship between society and an individual is as though between an object and its shadow. No one individual can function apart from society, nor can society operate without the support of individuals. Society, as we know, is the umbrella term for the collection of humans working as a community and sharing common ideals with regards to actions, ethics, and morals. The foundation of a society is always going to be the individuals that make it up. When the individuals in a society are all just and moral people, then society naturally would work as a just and moral entity. Therefore, the implications of peoples’ ideals, intentions, and actions dictate the conventions of that society. However, the notions of morality
We can easily prove the thought process that one experiences before carrying out any action. A moral compass for each member in society is created through their exchanges with others and their environment. This moral compass is used to evaluate the action we are about to take. Furthermore, this moral compass is what creates a distinction between intentions and actions. There are numerous arguments that can be created regarding intention and action. However, I personally feel as though regardless of the outcome, the intent to which we carry out an action is what should be considered when debating the morality and righteousness of an action. The idea that intent is more important that the action itself aligns with Immanuel Kant’s understanding of morality. Immanuel Kant is an 18th century German philosopher who wrote numerous essays arguing that reason should be the groundwork for establishing any idea of morality. In his work, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” he contents that intentions overpower actions. Kant explains the notion of a moral compass through his idea of a categorical imperative. The categorical imperatives according to Kant are principles that can be universally accepted as they do only good and no harm. By saying that they are good, they are morally just in the sense that the imperatives take into account the laws of nature. In other words, these imperatives understand the guidelines to the way in which the
Koorsgaard ultimately agrees with Kant and simply extends those ideals to the treatment of animals. After evaluating both sides, I feel as though the debate between extending the Kantian ideals to the treatment of animals depends on what defines a rational animal and where the distinction between humans and animals come from based off the interactions between humans and animals. It is evident that humans have a rationale mindset. We have the ability to think as well as the ability to communicate our thoughts. Humans experience emotion. We feel love, pain, sadness, and even numbness. Studies have observed animals feeling similar emotions, however their inability to communicate will never validate this claim. As humans, we also function within a society. We have duties and obligations to our society; hence the need to abide by a categorical imperative becomes pivotal. We are the most interactive and interconnected species on our planet. If the interactions between humans and other humans are governed by morals and principles, then there should be some sort of moral governance when humans and animals are