Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time, today the city of Kaliningrad. He was the fourth of eleven children, only four of which reached adulthood. His father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harness maker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city. His mother, Regina Dorothea Reuter (1697–1737), was born in Nuremberg.  In his youth, Kant was a solid, but unspectacular, student. He was brought up in a household that stressed religious devotion, personal humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern education – strict, punitive, and disciplinary – that preferred Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science. He never married, but did not seem to lack a rewarding social life - he was a popular teacher and a modestly successful author even before starting on his major philosophical works.

Kant showed a great aptitude to study at an early age. He was first sent to Collegium Fredericianum and then enrolled at the University of Königsberg where he would later be a professor for the rest of his career. However the death of Kant's father in 1746 left him without income. He became a private tutor for seven years in order to have enough time and money to continue his education. During this period Kant published several papers dealing with scientific questions. Many of Kant’s early works focused purely on science such as his interest in explaining the solar system and nebulas. The philosophies that we now consider to be Kantian were not developed until the 1750’s after he rejected many of his earlier philosophies. In 1796, at the age of seventy-two, Kant gave his last lectures. He continued to write and publish until 1800, when the disabilities of old age made work impossible. His hearing and sight began to fail. Judging from contemporary descriptions of his health, the philosopher was also suffering from Alzheimer's disease. He displayed the classic symptoms of the malady: short-term memory loss and the inability to recognize relatives and close friends. His health and mind deteriorated steadily until his death on 12 February 1804.

Kant Philosophy

Categorical Imperative: the idea that an action must only be considered to be of good moral value if it could be determined for all humankind

                3 Maxims:

                1. “Act only according to that maxims whereby you can at the same time will that it  should become a universal law.”

                2. “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the  person of  any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”

                3. “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

Duty: you must perform an action out of duty in order to avoid moral confusion and selfishness

Good will: one cannot be completely confident in whether human nature is naturally good or not, but that one must strive for the moral good of everyone, even if it means happiness is not a result of your actions

Moral Theology: holds the idea that happiness and the morality of men is not one in the same and that man’s will is not necessarily what should be grounds for determining an action as morally correct, but that there needs to be some standard- this idea suggests that Kant believes in the existence of a higher being other than man

Self- Knowledge: an understanding of one’s own conduct as being either pure or impure, that people have psychological complexities in that their actions can be corrupt because of selfish motives, but  to have moral perfection you must practice self-awareness

Conrad Murray

Kant’s view on the Michael Jackson vs Conrad Murray

            One cannot administer drugs that are not intended for the use that they are being administered for. Each person must peruse the best personal action, the first of which being that of universality. Universality or universal law is what should help people to use their moral compass, if the action you are to take is not one that would be desirable for all to partake then none should. This was broken in many ways, first by not being truthful about what he had administered to Jackson in the first place saying that he had done nothing only to later find out that he had administered the drug and a rather large amount and he was also mixing it. So if I lied so not to get in trouble where we would all be today that is the thought process behind universality that every action you make should be made with the thought behind it that would this be ok if everyone did it. No the answer here is no if everyone that was able administered drugs to patients for their own personal gain we would be in dyer trouble. This leads me into my next point and that is that no person should be used as a means to end only and that you are never to manipulate a person no matter what. This is exactly what he was doing, Michael wanted to sleep so this doctor saw an opportunity and took it. He offered to help Michael to sleep only to fill his own pockets which was using Michael to get money and make himself wealthier. The last thing is that of being the moral authority of the universe. This doctor is not by any means being the moral authority, he is lying and cheating and do whatever it takes to make a buck with disregard to anyone else.
            There is also the thought of duty and good will, meaning that we help people not because we are be pain in some form for it but because it is morally right to help others that need the help. Conrad Murray was clearly not acting in good will he was merely doing what he did so that he could make more money (150,000 per month) not because it was in his power to help and he just should. 

 

Cindi Santana

    One’s safety should not be jeopardized by others selfishness and lack of moral dishonesty. Protection should be an unspoken action of universality to keep us from corrupting our own morality. Not completing actions in a sense of universality leads the person to not have acted out of duty and good will which means there actions do not have a high moral standing.

In relation to the controversy over Cindi Santana’s death the principals and campus security should have protected miss Santana not only because of their job but also because of universality. Not using the idea of universality also put other students and staff in danger. Given the same situation those individuals would want protection against someone who was trying to harm them. Even though they cannot control the moral actions of Abraham Lopez Santana’s ex and her alleged murder they still have their own morals to uphold. Santana’s mother tried to keep her daughter safe satisfying her duty as a mother by informing the school of the situation, while Cindi took care of herself by informing the police of the threatening calls and actions Abraham was displaying. Hopefully, school systems will look at this situation and prevent another tragedy. Having the life of a young woman being taken shows that the actions of authority figures were impure shows that they do not have moral perfection and are not self-aware. 

Casey Anthony

              One’s personal happiness should not be an end, but rather good will should determine one’s personal conduct in life. There should be moral good that is extended universally, with not merely the individual’s wishes in mind. An action must not use others selfishly in order to gain a certain result. To evade impure actions and a moral confusion, self-knowledge should be practiced so that one’s will can be improved.

                In the Casey Anthony case, her actions were not following the good will, as she on several accounts acted out of selfish motives rather than for the universal good. For instance, when the police first came to discuss her missing daughter Caylee, Anthony claimed to be doing her own investigation. This was not in the best interests of the entire human population, as she withheld information from the police about her daughter being missing. Already, Anthony seems to have made a morally wrong choice. She should have exercised self-knowledge to conclude that her actions of withholding information and then later giving lies to the public officials on where she lives and who was babysitting her child at the time, were all actions not performed out of duty but out of selfish motives. By putting Casey Anthony under trial, duty is being kept in mind which will benefit everyone by keeping a possible criminal away from others and keeping her accountable for her actions of possible first degree murder and for false information given to authorities.