philosophy – short answer questions and short essay, critical thinking

Description

I’ m going to uploaded Immanuel Kant’s “Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals” . please read and use as a source for homework. Thank you. Assignment #7: Kant, Fundamental Principles Read Immanuel Kant’s “Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals” in the Create Packet. This reading presents the second moral theory of the semester, Kant’s Deontology. The Greek deon suggests obligation, and thus Kant’s Deontology is an analysis of our moral duties. It is, in addition, arguably the most influential if not most successful moral theory in the history of philosophy. The level of writing, however, is very high and very technical, and so it is perhaps useful to keep in mind that the key idea will be this italicized phrase (parenthetical clarifications are mine) found a few pages into your reading: Act only on that maxim (personal rule) whereby you can at the same time will (rationally endorse, i.e., without contradiction) that it should become a universal (moral) law. This sentence is the first formulation of “the categorical imperative,” i.e., Kant’s candidate for the supreme principle of morality, and it deserves at least five rereads and at least five minutes of intellectual struggle. 1. Why can’t intelligence, wit, courage, riches, and health be properly called “good without qualification”? 2. Explain the idea of acting “as [moral] duty requires…because [moral] duty requires.” 3. A maxim is a subjective principle, e.g., I keep promises, and Kant claims that actions derive their moral worth from the maxims behind the actions. Another way to put this might be that the goodness of an action is based on the why the action was performed. Give an example of the same action being performed by two different people, e.g., giving money to charity, and explain how the second person’s action can be morally superior to the first person’s action. 4. Can I “universalize”––i.e., will (rationally endorse) as a universal (moral) law––my plan to borrow money without intending to repay it? Explain. 5. Write a brief essay in which you describe a biomedical scenario, identify a moral question arising from it, and resolve the question by applying the categorical imperative to the scenario. You must state the categorical imperative in your essay, and you may follow the pattern found in the following sketch of how to go about writing an ethical analysis that involves Kant’s categorical imperative (read and reread the sketch, noting the intricacies involved in the application of the principle of deontology to the example): First, compactly and clearly describe an ethical scenario, e.g., Sean wants to borrow money even though Sean will not be able to pay the money back. Second, identify precisely the moral question, e.g., Ought Sean borrow money if Sean will not be able to repay it? Third, state the categorical imperative, i.e., Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Fourth, put the matter in universal terms, e.g., Ought people borrow money if they will not be able to repay it? Fifth, explain what would happen to the institution of lending in an imaginary universe governed by the law, No one repays money. Sixth, note that such a law could not be willed as a universal law since the law would require what it destroys, i.e., the willingness or institution of lending money. Seventh, conclude that to universalize the plan would be, in effect, to imagine a universe in which everyone who borrows money fails to repay it. And therein lies the problem: in such a universe no one would lend money, i.e., the very institution of borrowing money would not, indeed could not, exist.