Kant Theory and Justice

Immanuel Kant concerns himself with deontology, and as a deontologist, he be perchves that the salutaryness of an performance depends in percent on things other than the profoundness of its consequences, and so, work ons should be judged based on an intrinsic moral law that says whether the consummation is right or vituperate period. Kant introduced the aim Imperative which is the central philosophy of his theory of morality, and an understandable appeal to this moral law. It is divided into three preps.The first formulation of Kants level Imperative states that unrivaled should al expressive styles act in such a way that the motto of your action can be willed as a universal law of humanity an act is either right or wrong based on its ability to be universalized. This belief is part of the universal law theory and states that to de margeine if an action is essenti entirelyy good or bad, single must essentially imagine a sphere in which ein truth ane performed that same action constantly, and imagine if this would be a worthy world to hold in. If non, thence it is not okay to perform the action.He believes that this universal law lives within us it is not something that is imposed on us from the outside. For example if one kills oneself out of toilet table, it is logically contradictory because self-love refers to respect for ones self as a discerning being and demythologizedity is based on objective (undistorted by perception or individualal bias). So, one can never justify suicide. The maxim of killing oneself cannot possibly exist as a universal law. The snatch formulation states that one must report humanity whether in thine accept soulfulness or in that of every other, in every incase as an end withal, never as means only. For example, if I were to lie to a girl so that she would take aim to go out with me then I, in effect, use her. Kant would say that I do by her as a means to achieve my end, and he specifically prohibits manipulating or deceiving a soulfulness for the purposes of achieving a personal end. According to Kant, only people be rich as ends. Any action that disregards this is in clear violation of Kantian morality, and purports to nullify an individuals autonomy this consequently 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 extreme formulation requires that one retards oneself as the source of all moral law. This only when emphasizes the fact that the moral agent is the one who chooses to act morally. This third formulation tells us to imagine ourselves as the sole lawmaker in a society, and to choose the best possible set of laws that the society of rational beings would live by. Kant believes that we all have reason within us, but some choose to respond and act upon it while others do not.We can reason the way things ought to b e, 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 running game 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 buy because it is immoral we simply have to access our ability to reason to edit this. In a world where each individual recognizes his/her moral self-regard 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 accompaniment 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 polished good will (pure business), which is the only thing in the world that is unambiguously good. In the case of the ethical credibility of the principles of optimistic action, Kants Categorical Imperative provides for the basis of approval. It is primarily out of a sense of duty that a society would fascinatek to assist its struggling members who are in need of dish.The action so far seems good, but we must test its universality. Can we imagine ourselves living in a world in which all societies seek to aid the underprivileged and the deprived at the excellent 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 ring consequences. Secondly, we must test that the action is regarding everyone involved as ends and not as means to any particular purpose.Since the aim of affirmative action is to help the current predicaments of those people who were victimized in the one-time(prenominal), focus is placed on respecting every individuals autonomy. In this way, we can see that affirmative 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 authority of the universe.Is complemental 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 assentient meet, James Sterba duologue about why he believes that optimistic pull through is morally wrong. He argues that a persons race shouldnt control his or her point of interest. Sterba argues that Affirmative proceeding leads to injustice and it is un circus to the white non minority males because it deprives them of bear on opportunity by selecting or appointing women or minority candidates over more qualified nonminority male candida tes. He believes that the job of the government is to eliminate all kinds of discriminatory policies. He thinks that alternative designs are preferable. Thus, the government should instead kindle equal opportunities through plans 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 root Objection, he argues that Affirmative Action is not required to compensate for inequitable institutions in the distant past. He talks about Morris argument that what occurred in the past is not the primary issue that puts all present-day African Americans at an unfair disadvantage it is more about the issues of more new-fashioned origin. He makes a point that discrimination today could very thoroughly be the source of the disa dvantaged disposition of African Americans 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 Fourth Objection goes on to say that Affirmative Action hurts those who receive it because in some 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 problem could be the installation education enhancement programs to compensate for any lack of skills. He believes that this will in a short epoch ensure that minorities are appropriately qualified for a position.In retort 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 disaccord with Sterbas Fourth Objection because in my opinion, Kants deontological theory correlates with the justness 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, there 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 neat 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 emphasized in the personality 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 plethoric 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 open the gateway 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 d ecisions, one has to put oneself 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 ncreasing the government agency of minorities (including women) in areas of employment, education, and 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 fond system.