Summary and critique - Book Report/Review Example

2. Summary The word deontology is derived from a Greek word ‘Deon’ that means obligation or duty. Kant belongs to the Age of Reasoning and he tends to provide his readers with a logical rationale that he deems apt in solving various problems regarding human actions. Kant suggests that while judging whether an action is good or bad rather than giving importance to the end result it is the intention of the individual that counts even if it has disastrous after affects. In other words a person should be given credit for his good intention and redeemed for his bad intent even if the good intention leads to disaster and bad intention solves the problem by the quirk of fate.

In Categorical Imperative Kant depicts that a common issue in decision making for a man is the conflict of following inclinations or duty. Hence Kant believes that before taking the final step one should subject ones actions to a little test which will help the individual to determine the extent of correctness of ones decision. Basically this test is the contemplation of the extent to which ones decision is applicable universally because Kant believes that if an individual commits an action that he considers should be followed by his fellow beings then that decision is correct.

However Kant stresses that the deciding factor in this case should not be based on personal feelings and emotions because they are temporary resultantly feelings change with time. Hence it is the moral principles and practicality that should act as the basis to judge this universality. Moreover he also explores the idea of equality and justice when it comes to treating ones fellow beings. Hence in Kant’s point of view ultimately it is the good will and rational frame of mind of an individual that counts while dealing with any problem in life and he believes such an approach in life this will automatically lead to the creation of a friendly and healthy society as well. 2.1.

Critique of Deontology Although on the surface Categorical Imperative appears to be flawless yet critics over the time have found various flaws that hinder the application of Kant’s perspective in to practical action. Consequently John Stuart Mill argues that if Kant suggests that every individual should have the right to create and live according to his personal set of rules then it will simply lead to chaos rather than solving problems. The reason for this is that every individual has his personal opinion and this can also lead to a situation where ones set of rules will not coincide with the other and ultimately it will lead to destruction rather than solving the problem.

Another objection that critics raise against Kant’s perspective is that if he says that the conflict between inclination and duty can be solved by judging whether the final decision is universally correct or not then when the individual is faced with the problem of choosing between two duties such an advice is not applicable because with reference to such a suggestion the end result will only be chaotic and bewildering. Hence Categorical Imperative is only applicable if the dilemma is between desire and duty which further nullifies the practical application of Kant’s perspective.

Another problem that critics demonstrate with Kant’s idea is that even if an individual contemplates the universal application of his actions yet when there is a dire need to achieve something in life human beings