Assertion: categorical imperative's action | /r/HasProperty | good
Facets:
value: in itself
type: OTHER
value: morally
type: MANNER
value: as a means to something
type: PURPOSE
value: because of some characteristic of the action
type: CAUSE
value: in deontological ethics
type: OTHER
value: according to kant
type: OTHER
value: no matter
type: OTHER
value: intrinsically
type: DEGREE
value: second,
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: An action is morally good if it is not only done in conformity with duty but from duty (Kant 1996, p. 53).
text: On the other hand, if an action itself is considered good and has no reason towards it, then it would be a categorical imperative.
text: I see this universalisation principle as two-fold in that, first, it rests on the notion of “what if” everybody else does it, and second, that an action is morally good only if you would like it done unto you.
text: An imperative thus says what action possible by me would be good, and it presents the practical rule in relation to a will which does not forthwith perform an action simply because it is good, partly because the subject does not always know that the action is good and partly because (even if he does know it is good)
text: An imperative thus says what action possible by me would be good, and it presents the practical rule in relation to a will which does not forthwith perform an action simply because it is good, partly because the subject does not always know that the action is good and partly because (even if he does know it is good)
text: The action would have to be “good in itself” and “necessary” (4:414) for it to be morally permissible.
text: A hypothetical imperative would be defining an action to be good if there is “a means to do something else”.
text: If the action be good only as a means to something else, the imperative is hypothetical; if the action is thought of as good in itself and therefore as necessary for a will which of itself conforms to reason and its principal, then the imperative is categorical…” (Kant, 434).
text: It asserts that a good will is the only intrinsically good thing and that an action is only good if performed out of duty, rather than out of practical need or desire.
text: He was explaining that actions in themselves were good or bad no matter the outcome because people chose their actions by their sense of moral duty, not by the consequences of their actions.
text: The theory was developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, and states that an action can only be good if its maxim—the principle behind it—is duty to the moral law, and arises from a sense of duty in the actor.
text: On the other hand, if the action is good according to itself than it is considered a categorical imperative.
text: The moral action is good within itself such the notion of practical reasoning.
text: If the action is good only as a means to something else, then the Imperative is Hypothetical, but if the action is represented as good in itself, the Imperative is Categorical” Three Formulations/Maxims (within Categorical Imperative) –
text: The observant reader may notice the slip here between the claim that actions prescribed by categorical (i.e., according to Kant, moral) imperatives must be intrinsically good, and the claim that the willing of them must be intrinsically good.
text: But for this to be so surely presupposes that there are duties (presumably Kant didn't think that action according to false moral principles was good).
text: Moral action is good only if we do in fact have obligations.
text: In deontological ethics an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good.