The practicality of ethical principles: duty before fearSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay In this article, I will demonstrate how Immanuel Kant's ethical principles presented in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereinafter GMM) offer a more suitable choice. to resolve ethical dilemmas as the ethical principles presented by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (henceforth Lev.). I believe that fear is not the only, nor the most effective way to advocate the use of morality and that there is enough supporting information to prove this belief. First, I will explain the ethical principles of Hobbes and Kant presented in their respected works, detailing their views on human nature and how it affects the actions and morality of individuals. Second, I will present my argument that Kant's theories are the most applicable choice for resolving ethical dilemmas, including exploring the theoretical applications of Kant's and Hobbes's ethical principles to thought experiments. Next, I will present objections to my beliefs, as well as to Kant's theories, generated from the ideas advanced in Lev. as well as the GMM. Finally, I will respond with counterarguments to the specified objections in order to conclude that Kant's theory of ethical principles is more applicable to ethical dilemmas than Hobbes's theory of ethical principles. In Lev., Hobbes describes humans as beings who possess “perpetual power.” and a ceaseless desire for power after power, which ceases only in death” (Hobbes, 1.11). Humans, according to Hobbes, are constantly motivated by the acquisition of power, to the point that some would even risk their lives to acquire such power. These sought-after powers can range from innate abilities such as strength, speed, and endurance to acquired abilities such as resources and allies. Hobbes explains that because of this motivation, the natural state of humans is to be in a continuous state of war, because if two beings wished to possess the same resource, they would attempt to defeat each other for that resource (Hobbes 1.13). This state of nature would continually exist without the creation and enforcement of laws, because justice and injustice are not innately designed into the body or mind (Hobbes 1.13). In order for humans to avoid the state of nature, Hobbes proposes three laws. of nature: strive for peace and continue in peaceful directions, be willing to give up your right to all things and keep the covenants you have accepted (Hobbes 1.14-1.15). These laws are designed to allow humans to avoid actions that could lead to their own destruction, through the consensus of all men to comply with these designed natural laws. Hobbes believed that each person has a right to all things, but that to enjoy these things one must survive, and this survival could only be guaranteed if the state of nature was avoided by respecting these three laws as well as a law. enforce coercive power, which he describes as the Commonwealth (Hobbes 1.13-1.15). In the GMM, Kant describes humans as rational beings possessing a will, that is, humans possess the ability to act in accordance with principles and laws (Kant). The will, according to Kant, is "nothing other than practical reason" (Kant), meaning that an individual's will can possess the capacity to use reason, in a manner free from all inclination, in order to arrive at a choice which is objectively necessary and therefore good (Kant). Kant explains thatAlthough the will can allow humans to recognize what we should do, that is, what is objectively necessary or good, the will of humans is also influenced by the subjective environment, and therefore act according to " goodwill” is not necessarily necessary. (Kant).Kant's primary ethical principle, the Categorical Imperative (hereafter CI), addresses the reality that human will does not necessarily require one to act according to the objectively necessary good. The IC states: “act only according to this maxim according to which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law” (Kant). IC is an obligation for all human beings to act only in a way in which one would wish all others to act in the same way. Kant describes the IC as an a priori, synthetic, practical proposition, that is to say that it is a judgment made before an experience, which aims to produce an action (Kant). The IC is not just a law; it is an imperative, which calls people to act. I believe that Kant's IC is a more applicable ethical principle for resolving ethical dilemmas than the natural laws proposed by Hobbes. Kant's IC is based on the concept of obligation, the idea that humans have a duty to respect the IC and act accordingly, and can comply with this obligation through the acquisition of good will (Kant). Hobbes's laws of nature, in contrast, explain a human nature that dictates the need for overarching coercive power in order to enforce morality and compliance with laws. Kant's IC is universal and dictates that all humans should be treated as an end rather than a means and is therefore superior to Hobbes's natural laws which require coercion to be followed and allow authority to be l sole creator of the definition of justice. Kant's CI is more applicable to resolving ethical dilemmas because it is a singular and universal moral principle that calls for treating humans as an end rather than a means. Anyone can make it their will to comply with the IC, that is, anyone can use the IC to determine whether their actions are morally sound. CI can also be applied to any ethical dilemma one faces, whether it is something as simple as whether or not to lie to a friend, or large debates ethics such as abortion. Kant's principle also calls for treating human beings as an end and not a means. Kant explains that “humanity and generally all rational nature is an end in itself” (Kant). That is, humans should not be used as a method to achieve a goal, but rather as a goal itself. In Lev., Hobbes dictates the need for coercive power to enforce the laws of nature through the provision of punishment far worse than the benefit one would believe would result from violating the laws (Hobbes 1.15) . In other words, people need to fear the punishment they face for breaking the laws more than they want the benefits of breaking the law. Hobbes believes that by using fear, all would comply with the laws. Fear, however, cannot be considered a reliable motivator for all humans. Take for example a missionary abroad whose life is threatened if he does not renounce his religion. He refuses and is murdered. The fear of death is not enough to keep him from what he truly believes. There are countless true stories like this of people who willingly give their lives for their faith. If the ultimate punishment of death is not enough to motivate these people to act, how could coercive power develop a punishment thatabsolutely everyone would fear? Hobbes's idea of ​​justice is "the constant desire to give to each his own." (Hobbes 1.15). Since Hobbes also believes that all humans have a right to all things, we must refer to his second law of nature which requires men to give up their right to all things and be content with the freedoms they possess. This would mean that justice would come from coercive power, which allows recognized property, and that there would be no injustice without such power (Hobbes 1.15). Justice and injustice are not concepts that exist solely through coercive power. Imagine for a moment, a plantation owner in the pre-Civil War American South. According to the “coercive power” of the time, he had the right to do what he wanted with his slaves, because they belonged to him. However, President Obama, America's current "coercive power," would say that the plantation owner had no right to own another human being. Two coercive powers in the same place but at different times have two completely different conceptions of justice. Furthermore, no matter what any coercive power says today, most people would agree that slavery is inherently evil. This is unfair, with or without the existence of coercive power. Justice cannot be an ambiguous term defined only by the coercive power, because then, with the change of the coercive powers, justice would also change, and some things are inherently just or unjust, regardless of the beliefs of the coercive power. However, some might argue that if the state of nature occurred, Hobbes's description of human nature would be observed. That is, if we were to assume for a moment that an event, perhaps a zombie apocalypse, sent the world into a state of nature, how would people act? Many would say that the human nature described by Hobbes in Lev. would most commonly be seen, with people risking everything to acquire resources such as food, weapons, and allies. Who, in this desperate time, would feel the need to reflect on their actions in order to decide whether they want those actions to become universal law? Some might argue that in such a situation, humans would regress to their most primal instincts and that acquiring the power to survive would override all other ethical obligations. Furthermore, some might argue that certain duties conflict with universality which is a key element. to Kant's IC. One of these contradictory obligations is the duty of self-esteem that justifies suicide. If one is so depressed and miserable, one could argue that one has a duty, out of self-esteem, to commit suicide due to the idea that living longer will result in more suffering than contentment (Kant). However, we must ask ourselves how to make suicide a universal law. A second opposing obligation is that of lying for one's own advantage justified by the duty of self-esteem. It could be argued that if one needs something, one has a responsibility, out of self-esteem, to borrow the necessary resource from another with the assured promise of a definitive time of reciprocity, even if one knows that such reciprocity is not possible (Kant). We must again ask ourselves whether such a condition would be valid as a universal law. In response to Hobbes's proposed state of nature, Kant's CI would be extremely beneficial in such a state and would likely prevent such a state from occurring. Imagine there was a zombie apocalypse, in which the last remaining group of humans were holed up in a camp surrounded on all sides by zombies. Hobbes would argue. 2014.