The practicality of ethical principles: duty before fearSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In this article I will demonstrate how Immanuel Kant's ethical principles presented in Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (henceforth GMM) provide a more appropriate choice for resolving ethical dilemmas than the ethical principles presented by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (d 'now onwards Lev.). I believe that fear is not the only, nor the most effective way to support the use of morality and that there is sufficient supporting information to demonstrate 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 provide objections to my beliefs, as well as Kant's theories, generated from the ideas set forth in Lev. as well as the GMM. Finally, I will respond with counterarguments to the specified objections to conclude that Kant's theory of ethical principles is more applicable to ethical dilemmas than Hobbes's theory of ethical principles. In Leviticus, Hobbes describes humans as possessing a “perpetual and restless desire for power after power, which ceases only at death” (Hobbes, 1.11). Human beings, according to Hobbes, are constantly motivated by the acquisition of power, to the point that some would even risk their lives to obtain it. These coveted powers can range from innate abilities like strength, speed, and endurance to learned abilities like resources and allies. Hobbes explains that because of this motivation, the natural state of human beings is to be in a continuous state of war, since if two beings wished to possess the same resource they would try to outdo each other for that resource (Hobbes 1.13). This state of nature would exist continuously without the creation and enforcement of laws, since justice and injustice are not innately conceived in the body or mind (Hobbes 1.13). In order for humans to avoid the state of nature, Hobbes proposes three laws of nature: to strive for peace and continue in peaceful directions, to be willing to give up one's right to all things, and to observe the covenants one accepts (Hobbes 1: 14-1:15). These laws are designed to allow humans to avoid actions that could lead to their own destruction, through the consent of all humans to abide by these designed natural laws. Hobbes believed that every person has a right to all things, but in order to enjoy these things one must survive, and this survival cannot be guaranteed unless the state of nature is avoided through the observance of these three laws and one he reads the application of coercive power, which he describes as the Commonwealth (Hobbes 1.13-1.15). In the GMM, Kant describes humans as rational beings who possess a will, i.e. that 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), in the sense that the will can possess the ability to use reason, free from any inclination, to reach a choice that is objectively necessary and therefore good (Kant). Kant explains that although the will can allow humans to recognize what we should do, that is, what objectively isnecessary or good, the will of human beings is also influenced by the subjective environment, and therefore it is not necessarily necessary to act according to “good will”. (Kant). Kant's main ethical principle, the Categorical Imperative (henceforth CI), addresses the reality that human will does not necessarily require one to act in accordance with the objectively necessary good. The IC states: “act only according to that maxim for which you can and at the same time want it to become a universal law” (Kant). IC is the obligation of all human beings to act only in the way that one would like everyone else to act in the same way. Kant describes IC as an a priori, synthetic, practical proposition, in the sense that it is a judgment expressed before an experience, which aims to produce action (Kant). The IC is not just a law; it is an imperative that 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 human beings have a duty to respect the IC and act accordingly, and can comply with this obligation through the acquisition of a good will (Kant). Hobbes's laws of nature, in contrast, explain a human nature that dictates the need for general coercive power in order to enforce morality and conformity to law. Kant's IC is universal and dictates that all human beings be treated as ends rather than means and therefore is superior to Hobbes' natural laws which require compliance with coercion and allow authority to be the sole creator for definition of justice. Kant's IC is more applicable to solving ethical dilemmas because it is a singular and universal moral principle that requires that human beings be treated as ends rather than means. Anyone can demand their willingness to comply with the IC, that is, anyone can use the IC to determine whether their actions are morally sound. IC can also be applied to any ethical dilemma you face, whether it's something as simple as whether or not you should lie to a friend, or big ethical debates like abortion. Kant's principle also requires that human beings be treated as ends and not as means. Kant explains that “humanity and in general every rational nature is an end in itself” (Kant). That is, humans must not be used as a method to achieve a goal, but rather must be the goal themselves. In the Lev., Hobbes dictates the need for coercive power to enforce the laws of nature through the provision of a punishment that is far worse than the benefit one might believe would result from breaking the laws (Hobbes 1.15). In other words, people must fear the punishment of violating laws more than they desire the benefit of violating laws. Hobbes believes that through the use of fear everyone would respect the laws. Fear, however, cannot be considered a reliable motivator for all human beings. Take for example a missionary abroad, whose life is threatened unless he renounces his religion. He refuses and is killed. The fear of death is not enough to distract him from what he truly believes. There are countless real-life stories like this, of people willingly sacrificing their lives for their faith. If the ultimate punishment of death is not sufficient to motivate such people to action, how can any coercive power develop a punishment that all men absolutely fear? Hobbes' idea of ​​justice is “the constant will to give to each his own” (Hobbes 1.15). Since Hobbes also believes that all human beings have a right toall things, we must refer to his second law of nature which requires men to renounce their right to all things and be content with the liberties they possess. This would mean that justice would arise from coercive power, which allows for recognized property, and that there would be no injustice without such power (Hobbes 1.15). Justice and injustice are not concepts that exist solely because of coercive power. Imagine for a moment a plantation owner in the pre-Civil War American South. According to the “coercive power” of that period, he had the right to do whatever he wanted with his slaves, because he owned them. 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 from the same place but in different time periods have two completely different ideas of justice. Furthermore, regardless of what any coercive power says today, most people would agree that slavery is inherently wrong. It is unjust, with or without the existence of coercive power. Justice cannot be an ambiguous term defined only by coercive power, since as coercive powers change justice would also change, and there are some things that are intrinsically 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 behave? Many argue that the human nature described by Hobbes in Lev. would be the most commonly observed one, with people risking everything to acquire resources such as food, weapons, and allies. Who in this desperate moment would feel the need to reflect on their actions to decide if they want them to become a universal law? Some might argue that in such a situation humans would regress to their most primal instincts and the acquisition of power for survival would outweigh all other ethical obligations. Furthermore, some might argue that there are some duties that conflict with the universality that is a fundamental part of Kant's IC. One of these conflicting obligations is the duty of self-love that justifies suicide. If one is so depressed and unhappy, one could argue that one has a duty, out of self-love, to take one's own life due to the idea that living longer will bring more suffering rather than contentment (Kant). However, we must ask ourselves how suicide can be made a universal law. A second opposite obligation is to lie for one's own benefit justified by the duty of self-love. One might argue that if one needs something, one has the responsibility, for self-love, to borrow the needed resource from another with the sure promise of a definitive time of reciprocity, even when one knows that such reciprocity is not possible (Kant). One must ask once again whether such a condition would be valid as a universal law. In response to the state of nature proposed by Hobbes, Kant's CI would be extremely advantageous in such a state and would likely prevent such a state from occurring. Imagine there is a zombie apocalypse, where the last remaining group of humans are locked in a field surrounded on all sides by zombies. Hobbes would argue that in such a state everyone would be in a life-or-death competition for resources. However, if all individuals within the field were to respect the CI and Kant's ethical principles, the scene would. 2014.