Immanuel Kant's deontological ethical theory, the foundation of the metaphysics of morality, can be viewed from many different perspectives. Because it is based on duty operating as a final good, the theory of utilitarianism (a moral theory concerned with actions per se) calls into question Kant's major concepts such as moral law and the categorical imperative and how each of them relates to the moral and physical nature of individuals. experiences. However, specific aspects of utilitarianism such as consideration of circumstances can actually be considered as evidence in support of the deontological view, demonstrating that, regardless of convincing counterarguments, Kant's theory should be considered the standard on which we base our moral decisions. to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Understanding the basis of Kant's metaphysics of morality is a crucial first step in understanding the reasons behind its superiority as an ethical theory. First, breaking down the philosophy used to create this theory into individual, separate aspects can help follow how they eventually fit together. Kant used three specific areas of philosophy in forming this theory: physics, ethics, and logic. Physics refers to the physical world, in this case the actions that take place. Ethics is associated with morality, what Kant presents as a maxim, the thought process or motivation for a particular action. Logic refers to logical principles, or the logic used before acting to determine whether our maxim is morally permissible. Kant arrived at the first important condition of his moral theory, the idea of ​​Moral Law, through a combination of two of these philosophical aspects, physics and ethics. Moral law states that actions (physics) are moral (ethics), only if undertaken to achieve moral ends. This implies that neither the interests of the individual, nor the circumstances, nor the consequences can be taken into consideration. This view views our motivation as the only aspect that matters in determining morality. In other words, the individual's intention is everything, regardless of the results. An important concept in moral law is anti-consequentialism, which means that the actual consequences of an action do not matter because they are outside of a person's direct control. Only the foreseen consequences need to be considered. Kant believes that good will is the only thing that is intrinsically good, and therefore good will has intrinsic value. For this reason, Kant rejects the concept of moral luck, any circumstance in which luck has an influence on the outcome of a moral decision. For example, suppose a man shoots another man dead and is caught versus a man who attempts to shoot another man dead, but misses and is caught. Moral law suggests that punishing an attempted murder less than the man who actually committed the murder, as society's legal system often does, makes no moral sense when the man's bad intentions are taken into account. Since moral law also refuses to recognize any personal gain regarding the morality of an action, it tells you which hypothetical imperatives are permissible and which are immoral, which means that a hypothetical imperative is conditional. There is no single hypothetical imperative. Therefore, the moral law is categorical, not hypothetical. The categorical imperative of the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals introduces the third philosophical principle used in the creation of Kant's deontological ethical theory: logic, or the reason behind thedetermination of the morality of our maxim. The categorical imperative states that we should act as if we want our actions to become universal law. This is the opposite of the hypothetical imperative, which acts on instrumental rationality (determining the means by which an individual can achieve his or her goal). The categorical imperative reduces the alogical morality that should be able to be applied in all circumstances to all individuals. For example, imagine a scene where you owe a large sum of money to a bookie due to a gambling debt, and if you do not repay this debt in a timely manner, your life is in danger. However, you don't have the money to give to the bookmaker. You decide to borrow money from a rich friend to whom you tell him you will repay what you borrowed as soon as you can, but in reality you have no intention of repaying. The maxim behind a false promise is that it will get you out of serious trouble. This is the hypothetical imperative: your goal is to save your life, and to achieve that goal you make a false promise. However, further examination might lead to the formation of a categorical imperative, the reflection on how society would be affected if everyone acted according to this maxim. This example also clearly shows consideration of the humanity formula, a critical aspect of the categorical imperative that we should always treat others as ends in themselves and not simply as means to our ends. When people violate the categorical imperative, they apply a different standard to themselves than they would apply to anyone else. In essence, they make an exception for themselves, which can create contradictions. So, in our bookie example, if making false promises were universalized, the institution of promising would be destroyed and consequently your plan would not work. Therefore, one should not want the universality of making false promises to get out of trouble. One moral theory that clashes with Kant's is utilitarianism. In contrast, utilitarianism is concerned with the actions themselves rather than the maxims behind them. As Mill said, “the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, but much to do with the value of the agent” (Utilitarianism, 491). In a general sense, utilitarianism states that, regardless of motivation, actions are moral if they produce happiness and are not moral when they produce the opposite of happiness. In defense of this, Kant uses the logical principle of the categorical imperative which reduces morality to pure rationality. He argues that reason does not favor this definition of moral actions because only deserved happiness is good. Happiness cannot be unconditionally good because inclination is not sufficient for morality since happiness-promoting actions done for the wrong reason distance you from duty, the true ultimate good. Another aspect of utilitarianism that counteracts the basis of the metaphysics of morality is Bentham's argument in favor of considering circumstances in determining whether or not an action is moral. He says that the measurement of morality should be done on a case-by-case basis, because some contextual factors may have an influence on the morality of the action performed. This explicitly goes against Kant's moral law that interests, circumstances and consequences cannot be taken into account. An obvious rebuttal to this alternative view would be that, when considering the circumstances, there is the potential to convince us to break the rules without real justification. While respecting Kant's moral law and maintaining indifference to circumstances by observing only intention will help us preserve impartiality, a definitive aspect of utilitarianism..