Assertion: categorical imperative's action | /r/HasProperty | wrong
Facets:
value: without any reference to consequences
type: OTHER
value: of themselves
type: OTHER
value: precisely
type: DEGREE
value: without appealing to utilitarianism
type: MANNER
value: morally
type: DEGREE
value: for 1 person
type: OTHER
value: in the universes eye
type: LOCATION
Source sentences:
text: Although one, for example, ought to act beneficently as far as possible, the “as far as possible” is left indeterminate: not every action that fails to measure up is wrong; there is more leeway in meeting one’s imperfect duties.
text: However, since actions are only considered wrong because they must be applied categorically and not because they violate God’s law, result in pain to someone, or violate their rights, then it could very well be that a society could develop which holds that helping anyone in a time of aid would be considered detrimental to the long-term success of a society.
text: A person's actions are right or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base).
text: A person's actions determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or wrong.
text: These actions are wrong in and of themselves, without any reference to consequences (notwithstanding any negative consequences there might be).
text: These actions are wrong in and of themselves, without any reference to consequences (notwithstanding any negative consequences there might be).
text: Because even if the act is “self-less” and will help later, the action can still be wrong in the universes eye.
text: - if an action is wrong for 1 person - it's wrong for another - everyone should act on the same principle of an action
text: In his theory, Kant claimed that various actions are morally wrong if they are inconsistent with the status of a person as a free and rational being, and that, conversely, acts that further the status of people as free and rational beings are morally right.
text: Mill argued that Kant's ethics could not explain why certain actions are wrong without appealing to utilitarianism.
text: As basis for morality, Mill believed that his principle of utility has a stronger intuitive grounding than Kant's reliance on reason, and can better explain why certain actions are right or wrong.
text: But Kant goes a step further and formulates a supreme rational principle that tells us precisely whether a specific action is right or wrong.
text: Although Mill cites the general formula of the categorical imperative in the above quote, he directs his attack against the Formula of the Law of Nature, which tells us that an action is wrong if a contradiction arises when universalizing the intended maxim.
text: Aside from the one-of-a-kind example of deceitful promises, then, Kant’s Formula of the Law of Nature merely tells us that an action is wrong if it violates a duty.
text: Again, these philosophers held that the laws of nature mandate a specific set of duties to God, self, and others, and that an action is wrong if it violates these specific duties.
text: If you are treating the person merely as a means, then the action is wrong.
text: This means that to test whether an action is wrong, simply ask, “What if everyone were doing the action at all times and all places?
text: I also think that the first formula can justify if the action of one’s person is morally correct or wrong.