Aristolte

In this paper I will argue Immanuel Kant’s ethics theory of moral philosophy is one that exceeds the theory of Utilitarianism brought to us by John Stewart Mill and that Jeremy Bentham as well as the theory of Libertarianism. Kant’s theory weighs heavy on what it truly means to be free as well as respecting human dignity. He rejects the theory of Utilitarianism by explaining why we have a duty to respect the dignity of people and not to use people not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. Kant describes this by saying we shouldn’t use people to for our own or someone else’s wellbeing and that morality and duty not natures law should govern. Kant explains his ideas in his writing, “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals” he says that we are rational beings, capable of reason and that we have the ability to choose what we do. When we choose to do what is ‘right’ it will be of moral worth. He goes on to discredit Bentham’s idea that pain and pleasure are our sovereign masters, he instead claims that we are not just animals avoiding pain and moving towards pleasure but that we have a rational capacity that sets us apart from our animal counter parts.

Kant theory also explains what freedom truly means, that if we avoid pain like our animal instinct tells us to, we are not acting freely but as a slave to our animal like desires and emotions. If we are thirsty and we have three or four types of beverages to choose from, we aren’t really free to choose because we are actually obeying a natural instinct of thirst or desires placed in us through advertising and brainwashing. According to Kant freedom is the opposite of necessity and free isn’t choosing to do what you want, when you want to do it. He states that to act freely we need to act according to a law we have given ourselves, not heteronomously or to act according to our desires that we haven’t chosen for ourselves. By acting freely, we are choosing to be the commanding power and become ends in...