I find Kant’s theories very interesting. I think someone’s intentions speak louder about them than the consequences of their actions. A good person is always going to have good intentions. The outcome of their actions may not always result positively, but their heart will always be in the right place. Just because someone does something good, doesn’t make them a good person. It takes a lifetime of good deeds and good intentions to become a good person.
I believe murder is still morally wrong unless it is in defense of yourself or someone else. Even if someone does everything that would be considered virtuous for their entire life, they still dont get a free pass to commit murder. You can not weigh out a good person v. murder the way you can in perhaps a less serious offense. If a person is always good and then one day they shop lift, well shoplifting is still wrong but we consider them to be virtuous because the good outweighs the bad.
Everyone is out for their own self interest by nature. even when you do something for someone else it still nbenefits you because it makes u feel good. I believe anything you do for yourself is rational. You are trying to make yourself as happy as possiible so what is unrational about that? Even suicide is rational because you must have a reason you no longer want to lives which means you have given it thought and are not acting irrationally.
I do not believe that children can be responsible to uphold the social contract, but only because their brains arent fully developed, therefore they can not make a decision about their rights. People who are stuck in their society because they are unable to leave for financial reasons must abide by the contract until it is possible for them to move. They are living here therefore they must follow the rules that everyone else who lives here follows. You are signing the contract by residing in that society, wherever it may be at the time.
I believe that the government must be held to the same moral standards to which the people under the government are forced to live by. The government should be setting the example and punishing those who do not follow, but can not be hypocritical and not follow themselves. The government is made up of people who when they are viewed individually are supposed to uphold the same morals as everyone else, so why does that change because they went to work? People are individuals first before they are their job position. They can not rule in one manner and act in another.
I agree with Hobbes that if man was left to his own devices, it would be a disaster for society. Without some type of rules and regulations, people will naturally go to war with one another. Everyone is out for themselves and without any rules, society will become out of control. There would be no reason for people not to fight or kill for what they want because there would be no one to stop them. They wouldnt have any kind of rules, therefore they wouldnt have any reason to even know that murder is wrong. They would have no rules to start basing a moral code off of. I believe society would come to an end eventually because people would be killing quicker than they can reproduce.
By Kant’s theories, it would be immoral to cheat. Cheating would be immoral because the intentions or cheating are dishonest. If everyone cheated then there would be no way to compare abilities making the use of tests useless. If there were no tests then there would be no way to cheat. The consequences would be irrelevant in Kants eyes. The action and intentions of cheating are dishonest, making it immoral.