Kant Theory and Justice Essay Example for Free

Kant Theory and Justice Es placeImmanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he be broodves that the rightness of an live up to depends in part on things other than the goodness of its consequences, and so, drift throughs should be judged based on an intrinsic clean jurisprudence that says whether the action is right or wrong period. Kant introduced the Categorical shrill which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable approach to this moral law. It is divided into three looks. The first locution of Kants Categorical Imperative states that wizard should constantly act in such a focusing that the motto of your action can be willed as a universal pro do law of humanity an act is every right or wrong based on its ability to be universalized. This belief is part of the universal law theory and states that to determine if an action is basic completelyy good or bad, one must essenti on the wholey imagine a world in which everyone performed that alike(p) action constantly, and imagine if this would be a coveted world to live in. If non, then it is not okay to perform the action.He believes that this universal law lives indoors us it is not roughthing that is imposed on us from the outside. For example if one kills oneself out of self-love, it is logically unconnected because self-love refers to respect for ones self as a rational being and rationality is based on objective (undistorted by emotion or mortalal bias). So, one can neer justify suicide. The maxim of killing oneself cannot possibly exist as a universal law. The second formulation states that one must treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of either other, in every case as an end withal, never as means whole. For example, if I were to lie to a girl so that she would choose to go out with me then I, in effect, use her. Kant would say that I treated her as a means to achieve my end, and he specifically proh ibits manipulating or deceiving a person for the purposes of achieving a personal end. tally to Kant, only slew are valuable as ends. any action that disregards this is in clear violation of Kantian morality, and purports to reduce an individuals autonomy this whence undermines a persons rational capability and reduces him/her to a thing.This implies that if someone robs you and takes your wallet, he is treating you as a thing and not as a person. The third and last formulation requires that one sees oneself as the character reference of all moral law. This simply emphasizes the fact that the moral agent is the one who chooses to act morally. This third formulation proves us to imagine ourselves as the sole lawmaker in a society, and to choose the best affirmable set of laws that the society of rational beings would live by. Kant believes that we all have reason inwardly us, hardly some choose to respond and act upon it while others do not.We can reason the way things ought to be, and based on that is how we should act, which explains Kants view that a moral action must be chosen through moral reason. For example, one does not cheat on a prove because ones reason tells him or her that it is wrong, not the consequences that follow if one gets caught. Another example is that we do not need the law to tell us not to steal because it is immoral we simply have to access our ability to reason to contract this. In a world where each individual recognizes his/her moral dignity and freely chooses to adopt the same universalizable moral law, all actions become good.In opposition to the Categorical Imperative is Kants Hypothetical Imperative, which states that a particular action is necessary as a means to some purpose. Kant believes that these actions are not always moral because they are not performed out of pure good will (pure duty), which is the only thing in the world that is unambiguously good. In the case of the ethical credibility of the principles of affirmative action, Kants Categorical Imperative provides for the basis of approval. It is primarily out of a sense of duty that a society would seek to care its struggling members who are in need of help.The action so far seems good, barely we must test its universality. Can we imagine ourselves living in a world in which all societies seek to assistant the underprivileged and the disadvantaged at the slight expense of others? Absolutely yes. It is important for one to bear in mind, however, that it is the very action of helping that is being judged as inherently good or bad, and not the actions admirable or overbearing surrounding consequences. Secondly, we must test that the action is regarding everyone involved as ends and not as means to any particular purpose.Since the work out of affirmative action is to help the period predicaments of those people who were victimized in the ago, focus is placed on respecting every individuals autonomy. In this way, we can see that aff irmative action is not a devious plan that seeks to manipulate, but one that seeks to compensate by adjusting the means (circumstances) and not the ends (individuals). Lastly, we must see if the action is establishing a universal law governing others in similar situations one should behave as if one is the absolute moral permission of the universe.Is completing this action consistent with the application of moral law? If so, the affirmative action passes these three tests and the action is good. In his Objections to favorable achievement, James Sterba talks about why he believes that Affirmative follow out is morally wrong. He argues that a persons race shouldnt control his or her dose of interest. Sterba argues that Affirmative operation leads to injustice and it is unfair to the white nonminority males because it deprives them of equal opportunity by selecting or appointing women or minority candidates over more than qualified nonminority male candidates. He believes that t he job of the government is to eliminate all kinds of discriminatory policies. He thinks that alternative programs are preferable. Thus, the government should instead promote equal opportunities through programs within agencies and departments instead of through Affirmative Action which he believes is a fancy word for discrimination. He argues that it is not fair to those who are more qualified for certain opportunities and cannot receive them either because they are not women or because they are not part of the minority.In his First Objection, he argues that Affirmative Action is not take to compensate for unjust institutions in the distant past. He talks about Morris argument that what occurred in the past is not the primary issue that puts all bring out-day African Americans at an unfair disadvantage it is more about the issues of more recent origin. He makes a point that discrimination today could very salubrious be the source of the disadvantaged disposition of African Ame ricans and other minority groups, and it is certainly something that society could do without.The question remains that in attempting to level the playing field and eliminate present-day discrimination in America, is Affirmative Action a practical approach and should such a program be endorsed? The fourthly Objection goes on to say that Affirmative Action hurts those who receive it because in many ways the people benefitting from it would not see the need to work as hard, and it places women and minorities in positions for which they are not qualified. Sterba proposes that one of the solutions to this bother could be the installation education enhancement programs to compensate for any lack of skills. He believes that this will in a short time ensure that minorities are appropriately qualified for a position. In reaction to Sterbas First Objection, Kant would agree that the rightness of Affirmative Action should be based upon the circumstances of the present situation and not what had occurred in the past this is evident mainly through his a priori form of philosophical deductive reasoning that judges an action before the experience, or in the moment. However, Kant would disagree with Sterbas twenty-five percent Objection because in my opinion, Kants deontological theory correlates with the correctness of the affirmative action in its very aim toward helping the right people. Affirmative action has not significantly diminished gender, racial, and all other forms of discrimination, but the action has promoted equality and diversity to a large extent. In a world where everyone performs the good will, thither is justice and the installation of this program only serves to come closer to this justice.Discrimination is wrong because it violates a persons basic and intrinsic moral rights. Thus, in itself the adoption of this program is an action that is good because without Affirmative Action it is true in many ways that minorities would remain at a disadvantaged position in the educational system and not be allowed the opportunity to exercise their true potential. Kant would argue that it is a duty out of good will to treat people equally. The concepts of equality and autonomy are accent in the record of this program because it strives to treat everyone as a free person equal to everyone else.According to Kant, one should be treated as ends not as mere means. It can be argued that African Americans at a disadvantaged position were being treated as means by the paramount culture to achieve its own ends in the system. Discrimination cannot exist as a system of nature because those who discriminate would not want to be similarly discriminated against if things were reversed, and so Affirmative Action is justified because it aims to fan out the door of opportunities to those who have been oppressed for years.That being said, Kant would examine the action itself and not the consequences of the action. When making decisions, one has to put on eself into other peoples shoes and see if one wants to be treated the same way others have been treated it is a duty to treat others as we ourselves want to be treated. Affirmative Action not necessarily needed in this society to reduce the inherent inequalities that are still existent, but it can certainly be used to assist in leveling the playing field.Affirmative Action has been successful on a short term basis, that is, in increasing the representation of minorities (including women) in areas of employment, education, and line of business from which they have been historically excluded. However, on the long term basis it can be argued that the program only serves to perpetuate a cycle of need. Kant advocates the idea of equality through his deontological theory by saying that all people deserve equal treatment as rational ends in themselves and that this should never be compromised by the flaws in any social system.