Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Essay

Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Essay Example The categorical imperative proposed by Immanuel Kant places the standard for moral good in actions rather than traditions or beliefs. Kant argued that the actions of people should be judged as moral or immoral based on their personhood and dignity. The actions of a person should be treated as the right or wrong for that person only. In other words, morality is a principle originating inside a person's mind which compels that person to act in a particular way. We usually label a parson’s activity as good or evil based on our traditional beliefs and customs rather than the significance of that activity to that person. Family, society and the religion influence us very much in the formulation of our attitudes, thoughts, views etc. There is a tension between Kant’s conception of morality as rooted in universal reason and the manner in which most of us received our moral education. Moral education usually proceeds through following moral examples. We learn what it means to be good by observing the character and actions of those we believe to be good (family, friends, and religious figures). Kant challenges the underlying premise of this ordinary conception of moral education. How can I know that the character and actions of any given individual are good unless I have an independent conception of moral goodness? Kant even extends this argument to such an exemplary figure as Jesus. Write a paper examining the cogency of Kantâ€℠¢s challenge to the idea that moral norms can be derived from examples. This paper addresses not only the cogency of Kant’s critique, but the further question of how moral education is possible in Kantian terms also. Morality is often been defined by us with respect to traditions and customs. It is a fact that most of the religions are giving moral education to their communities based on their beliefs and customs. For example, Christians believe in Jesus Christ and they give moral education to their communities based on the teachings of Jesus. On the other hand, Muslims give moral education based on the teachings of Islam. Christians strongly argue against the killing of all the human beings whereas some of the fundamental Muslim groups believe that killing of enemies of Islam as a sacred act rather than a sin. Muslim fundamentalists justify the killing of innocent people citing examples like the massacres of America and Israel against the Muslim community. Muslim fundamental ists developed their moral laws or moral education based on the bitter experiences faced by the Muslim community at some parts of the world. According to Kant, an action can never be considered moral, if it is motivated by certain examples rather than the consciousness and wisdom of the individual. In other words, even if we face some bad experiences from some other people we have no moral right to take revenge for that. It is a fact that American soldiers are killing many of the Muslim fundamentalists in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of war on terror. America is citing the examples of 9/11 incident for the moral justification of their actions. However, according to Kantian moral principles, neither the killing of Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the killing of innocent people in other parts of the word by Bin Laden or terrorists, can be justified We normally assess our actions and other’s actions based on the observation of the character and actions of those we believe to be good (family, friends, and religious figures). For example, Christians put the actions of Jesus as a base in assessing the actions of others. Jesus taught his disciples to love their neighbors just like they love themselves. So,

Week 5 leadership Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Week 5 leadership - Essay Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Throughout Scripture many different styles of leadership are incorporated. Abraham was seen as an entrepreneurial style leader and Moses as a kaleidoscope leader. Moses had many styles like charismatic, administrative and a people’s manager in good times as well as during the times of crisis. This project will evaluate my personal ability as a Spiritual leader. Furthermore, this will examine my personal ability and style of leadership, as well as ability to set goals in conjunction with God’s agenda. It will also evaluate my ability to anticipate criticism from other leaders and followers, as a result of change processes. Moreover, this project will examine my potential as a leader to effect and accept change, innovate and effectuate continuous improvement.1 Leadership style and how the leaders deliver the message are important to the followers. Spiritual leadership is more than someone putting on an energetic show. The Spiritual leader is a vessel of the Holy Spirit to communicate the truth of the Gospel; of our Lord Jesus Christ. The leader must be sure that the Lord has called him or her into the ministry. Spiritual leadership is a high calling from the Lord and not just an occupation. Spiritual leaders are different from other styles of leaders. A true Spiritual leader must first be a true servant. In the secular world, leader and servant are completely opposite. We as Christian leaders pattern our lives and leadership after Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said, â€Å"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many.† (Mark 10:45) After evaluating my personal style of leadership, I see similarities between my style and Abraham. Abraham had an entrepreneurial style of leadership. Personally I was involved as an entrepreneur in the secular business world, prior to God calling me to the ministry. After the