Angaben zur Quelle [Bearbeiten]
| Autor | Ryan Tonkens |
| Titel | A Challenge for Machine Ethics |
| Jahr | 2009 |
| URL | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-009-9159-1 |
| Fragmente | 1 |
| [1.] Analyse:Ath/Fragment 020 08 - Diskussion Zuletzt bearbeitet: 2021-06-19 17:04:29 WiseWoman | Ath, Fragment, SMWFragment, Schutzlevel, Tonkens 2009, Unfertig, Verschleierung |
|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 20, Zeilen: 8-24 |
Quelle: Tonkens 2009 Seite(n): 427; 428, Zeilen: 427: 12 ff; 428: 25 ff |
|---|---|
| Similar to Aristotle, Kant reduced the definite conception of morality to the idea of freedom. Kant argues that full autonomy implies that an agent is the lawmaker of its
own rules. Kantian Ethicists refer to such rules as duties. A free agent acts with no foreign forces dictating its actions and obligations. Yet, a moral agent can still act contrary to its duty - it can act immorally. In order to assess whether an action is morally permissible or not, an agent must consider if it is consistently universal; all moral agents, given the same context, would act in the same manner. Kant argues that the moral law stems from reason alone, acting as a moral compass for all rational beings. Yet, rational beings can still act irrationally. Their actions might be influenced by basic animalistic needs for survival, the temptations of pleasure, and other emotions. Thus, for Kant the moral law acts as a constraint to natural desires. A moral agent is acting on 'good will' only if its actions are wholly determined by their moral demands. Kant's moral framework is Deontological; it is founded on the idea that doing what is right is nothing else other than doing one's duty. These duties are self-determined and exclusive for rational beings, as an agent needs to be able to rationalise and understand moral concepts; what is right and what is wrong. |
[page 427]
According to Kant, ‘the idea of morality reduces to the idea of freedom’; we are driven to presuppose the concept of freedom in order to understand ourselves as initiating moral causation, and hence as conceiving all rational beings as exhibiting such causation.7 In this way, the categorical ought reveals itself as reason’s tool for rational self-determination in the face of inclinational temptation. With rationality and freedom as the two points of departure for morality, Kant proceeds to articulate the moral law through the conception of what he terms the categorical imperative. In order to assess whether an action is morally permissible or not, an agent must test her subjective maxim — her personal principle of action — against the objective formal criteria of the categorical imperative. In order for acting upon a maxim to be moral, that maxim needs to be consistently universalizable. Roughly, it must be consistently held that all moral agents, given the same context, would (could) act on that very same maxim. [page 428] Kant’s moral framework is deontological, meaning that it is founded on the idea that doing what is right is none other than doing one’s duty. According to Kant, rational beings determine their duties for themselves, through exercising their rationality. Acting dutifully is the only path towards establishing a good will, which is the only thing that is good without qualification.12 7 Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, p. 80. (Hereafter FPMM). [...] 12 FPMM, pp. 17–20. |
Although the text has been re-worded, it is clear that this text served as the basis for this fragment. The true source is not given. |
|