After reading “The Good Will” & “The Categorical Imperative” by Immanuel Kant, respond to the following questions concerning cultural relativism and subjectivism.
1.Kant claims that a good will is the only thing that can be considered “good without limitation.” What does he mean by this? Do you find this claim plausible?
2.Unlike hedonists, Kant believes that happiness is not always good. What reasons does he give for thinking this? Do you agree with him?
3.What is the difference between doing something “in conformity with duty” and doing something “from duty”?
4.Kant claims to have discovered a categorical imperative, a moral requirement that we have reason to follow regardless of what we happen to desire. Can people have reasons for action that are completely independent of their desires?
5.According to Kant, it is morally permissible to act on a particular principle (or maxim) only if “you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” Do you think this is a good test of whether an action is morally permissible? Can you think of any immoral actions that would pass this test, or any morally permissible actions that would fail it?
6.Kant later gives another formulation of the categorical imperative: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” What does it mean to treat someone as an end? Are we always morally required to treat humans in this way?