Kant's Theory of Ethics and the Traditional Moral Ethics

EthicsName
Question 1
Kant’s theory of ethics is an example of deontological belief. The theory argues that the rightness or the wrongness of an action is not in the consequences but rather on the moral duty of an individual. Kant’s theory emphasizes the existence of a supreme law which is that of good will. He goes ahead to say that good will is the only unqualified good since every other virtue can be used in a wrong way or to achieve unacceptable endings save for good will.
Kant referred to the supreme standard of morality as categorical imperative. By this he argued that the principle of good will is very objective and rational that anyone should follow in whatever circumstance they find themselves in. he argued that there are times that there are other external factors such as what people think, the impact of our actions, what we might lose or even who we hurt by an action but ideally that should not be the way to go. Rather, we should stick to a moral standard regardless of how it turns out. By such argument, he introduced the concept of universality. This meant that the moral standard is not limited to geographic location, race, religion, political affiliation or gender but it applied the same everywhere and in all circumstances.
The bottom line according to Kant is that all immoral acts are not rational since they violate the categorical imperative.
Kant theory and the categorical imperative concept rely on a maxim which is basically a universalized action and that the consequences of an action are not important. But as we discussed in class, Benjamin William arguing against Kant’s theory highlights the fact that the consequences of an action must be weighed on the grounds of their impact. Benjamin goes ahead to argue that the significance of the consequences can in times be huge enough and they must surely be considered. In what has come to be known as the dire consequence objection, Benjamin insists that there are situations in which the general moral standards can be disregarded and the consequences paid attention to. For example, Benjamin would argue that is lying would save a man’s life then in that situation it would be appropriate to discard the moral standards and lie making the decision permissible rather than self-defeating.
Question 2
Martin Luther uses the Aquinas theory on natural law, human law and eternal law and the basis of logical consequences. He places his arguments on the fact that there are two types of laws: the just laws and the unjust laws. He argues that one has the moral duty to obey the just laws while by every means disobeying the unjust laws. At the time of writing the letter from Birmingham jail, there wa contention on the segregation ordinance and King was for the idea that it was an unjust law hence deserved to be disobeyed. Civil disobedience that King rooted for was in such a way that one openly disobeyed unjust laws with a heart ready to pay for the penalty hoping to being a change. And, since Aquinas had argued that the unjust law does not bind in the consc...