You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Name Instructor Course Date Moral obligation The issue of morality has sparked controversies considering the fact that various philosophers such as Kant and Hutcheson have given it different perspectives where the former insists that it is a function of rationality while the latter emphasizing on the role of obligation in morality.
A psychology philosopher named Immanuel Kant projected the voice of reason and rationality as the major motivating factors when it came to the issue of moral obligation. Hutcheson on the other hand, based the issue of morality on individual obligation and benevolence, positing that the reasons for benevolent acts did not matter after all (Stern 32). This paper presents Kant’s argument of moral obligation, how Hutcheson would have argued in response to Kant’s claim’s, and finally evaluating the two authors based on their explanations to see who between them presents a more reasonable argument. According to Stern, Kant’s principle of moral principles and obligations are arguably on of the finest of ethical theories as stipulated in the deontological theory (36). In his argument, Kant asserts that human beings are uniquely and essentially rational beings meaning that every individual uses the power of reason to make decisions on the appropriate actions to take. He emphasizes the need to have good will beforehand in order to conceive and achieve all the essential things in life. Timmons state in this regard, that the logic would play an important role in determining whether the perceived act will bring any good thing without ‘qualification’ (206). A good thing without qualification would only have two extremities including the good and the bad and nothing in between. ...
Not exactly what you need?