Brandon Reyes

Summary 8
In chapter eight the book begins by introducing the question, are there
absolute moral rules? Immanuel Kant believed that moral rules are absolute. Kant
believed that much of our conduct is ruled by oughts. These oughts are called
hypothetical imperatives because they let us know what to do given that we have
the relevant desires. He then defines a subset of this, categorical imperatives,
which is the reason that you ought to do something without consideration of your
desires. These reasons or rules are universally accepted and are called maxim. Kant
believed there were many universal rules. First, lying is always wrong; Kants
reasoning for this is flawed because it does not account for special circumstances.
In a response to this flaw, Kant replied that we believe a certain action is right, but
one cannot truly know future results. Thus, one should always tell the truth, for if he
lies, he is responsible for the consequences. However, it is seen that Kant did not
account for a scenario in which we do know the outcomes absolutely.
Absolute rules are a nice thing to have, but they allow for the possibility of
conflicts between rules. For example, consider a case where we are only given a
choice between rule one and rule two, which are both wrong to do. This creates
conflict because no matter which choice you make it will be considered wrong. For
this reason it seems impossible to have more than one absolute rule, or even a set
of rules. To conclude Kants theory, his basic principles are correct we should do to
those as we want done to ourselves, however, it is not necessary to have absolute
rules. If we believe our violation will be accepted by everyone, then it is right to
violate it.
Chapter 9 is concerned with Kant and the respect for persons. Kant believed
that animals are simply a means to an end. Human beings, however, are always an
end and never as a means only. Along with this, Kant also believes that humans
have an intrinsic worth or dignity. In order to solidify Kants theory Retributivism
(capital punishment) is discussed. In this respect Kant believed that punishing
people was alright if they deserved it. The utilitarian opposes this and believes that
instead of punishing wrong doers, we should rehabilitate them. Kant and his
retributivism oppose this mode of thinking for it forces someone to be something
they are not, thus violating rights. However, Kant still believes that criminals should
be brought to justice, but their punishment must fit the crime. From this, Kant,
drawls the conclusion that capital punishment should be enforced. The reason for
this is, by treating everyone as a rational being it can be seen that they must be
responsible for their own actions. Although Kant fully endorses this thought, it rests
solely on the fact that the criminals are rational beings. If some how it was shown
that criminals are not responsible for their actions, then it follows that they should
not be punished.

In the last section of the reading Immanuel Kants The Grounding of the
Metaphysics of Morals. Kant begins by saying there are two sciences, physics and
ethics. He then focuses on ethics by saying it is split into two categories empirical,
anthropology, and morals, which is based on priori principles. He then says that
every practical anthropology must come before morals. Thus, every moral law must
be composed of anthropology solely. From this Kant describes that a truly moral
action must not happen on accident, you must have consciously meant to perform
the moral act for it to be moral. This is what Kant describes as good will, something
that is good, is good because it is good in itself. Given nature has provided us with
good will it must follow that it has an intended purpose. For this reason Kant says
the purpose of good will is morality. Everything can be defined as good or bad
depending on good will, a sort of universal rule.