Bank Reconciliation Statement. Concept and Accounting of Depreciation. Unit 3: Consignment. Unit 4: Joint Ventures. Unit 5: Royalty Accounts. Unit 6: Average Due Date. Unit 7: Account Current. Initial Pages. Unit 2: Final Accounts of Manufacturing Entities. Unit 1: Introduction to Partnership Accounts.
Unit 2: Treatment of Goodwill in Partnership Accounts. Unit 3: Admission of a New Partner. Unit 4: Retirement of a Partner. Unit 5: Death of a Partner. Financial Statements of Not-for-Profit Organizations. Unit 1: Introduction to Company Accounts.
Unit 3: Issue of Debentures. Basic Accounting Ratios. Unit 1: Nature of Contracts. Unit 2: Consideration. Unit 3: Other Essential Elements of a Contract. Unit 4: Performance of Contract. Unit 5: Breach of Contract and its Remedies. Unit 6: Contingent and Quasi Contracts. Unit 1: Formation of the Contract of Sale. Unit 3: Transfer of Ownership and Delivery of Goods.
Unit 4: Unpaid Seller. Unit 1: General Nature of a Partnership. Unit 2: Relations of Partners. Unit 3: Registration and Dissolution of a Firm. The Limited Liability Partnership. The Companies Act, Comprehension Passages. Note Making. Introduction to Basics of Writing. Precis Writing. Article Writing. Report Writing. Part I: Formal Letters. Part II: Official Communication. The maxim of lying whenever it gets you what you want generates a contradiction once you try to combine it with the universalized version that all rational agents must, by a law of nature, lie when doing so gets them what they want.
My maxim, however, is to make a deceptive promise in order to get needed money. And it is a necessary means of doing this that a practice of taking the word of others exists, so that someone might take my word and I take advantage of their doing so.
It is a world containing my promise and a world in which there can be no promises. Hence, it is inconceivable that I could sincerely act on my maxim in a world in which my maxim is a universal law of nature. Since it is inconceivable that these two things could exist together, I am forbidden ever to act on the maxim of lying to get money. By contrast with the maxim of the lying promise, we can easily conceive of adopting a maxim of refusing to develop any of our talents in a world in which that maxim is a universal law of nature.
It would undoubtedly be a world more primitive than our own, but pursuing such a policy is still conceivable in it. However, it is not, Kant argues, possible to rationally will this maxim in such a world. Hence, although I can conceive of a talentless world, I cannot rationally will that it come about, given that I already will, insofar as I am rational, that I develop all of my own. Yet, given limitations on our time, energy and interest, it is difficult to see how full rationality requires us to aim to fully develop literally all of our talents.
Further, all that is required to show that I cannot will a talentless world is that, insofar as I am rational, I necessarily will that some talents in me be developed, not the dubious claim that I rationally will that they all be developed.
Moreover, suppose rationality did require me to aim at developing all of my talents. Then, there seems to be no need to go further in the CI procedure to show that refusing to develop talents is immoral.
Given that, insofar as we are rational, we must will to develop capacities, it is by this very fact irrational not to do so. However, mere failure to conform to something we rationally will is not yet immorality. Failure to conform to instrumental principles, for instance, is irrational but not always immoral. This is a claim he uses not only to distinguish assertoric from problematic imperatives, but also to argue for the imperfect duty of helping others G He also appears to rely on this claim in each of his examples.
Each maxim he is testing appears to have happiness as its aim. One explanation for this is that, since each person necessarily wills her own happiness, maxims in pursuit of this goal will be the typical object of moral evaluation. Second, we must assume, as also seems reasonable, that a necessary means to achieving normal human happiness is not only that we ourselves develop some talent, but also that others develop some capacities of theirs at some time.
For instance, I cannot engage in the normal pursuits that make up my own happiness, such as playing piano, writing philosophy or eating delicious meals, unless I have developed some talents myself, and, moreover, someone else has made pianos and written music, taught me writing, harvested foods and developed traditions of their preparation.
Thus, we should assume that, necessarily, rational agents will the necessary and available means to any ends that they will. And once we add this to the assumptions that we must will our own happiness as an end, and that developed talents are necessary means to achieving that end, it follows that we cannot rationally will that a world come about in which it is a law that no one ever develops any of their natural talents.
We cannot do so, because our own happiness is the very end contained in the maxim of giving ourselves over to pleasure rather than self-development. Since we will the necessary and available means to our ends, we are rationally committed to willing that everyone sometime develop his or her talents. So since we cannot will as a universal law of nature that no one ever develop any talents — given that it is inconsistent with what we now see that we rationally will — we are forbidden from adopting the maxim of refusing to develop any of our own.
This formulation states that we should never act in such a way that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or in others, as a means only but always as an end in itself. Intuitively, there seems something wrong with treating human beings as mere instruments with no value beyond this.
But this very intuitiveness can also invite misunderstandings. First, the Humanity Formula does not rule out using people as means to our ends. Clearly this would be an absurd demand, since we apparently do this all the time in morally appropriate ways.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine any life that is recognizably human without the use of others in pursuit of our goals. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the chairs we sit on and the computers we type at are gotten only by way of talents and abilities that have been developed through the exercise of the wills of many people. What the Humanity Formula rules out is engaging in this pervasive use of humanity in such a way that we treat it as a mere means to our ends.
Thus, the difference between a horse and a taxi driver is not that we may use one but not the other as a means of transportation. Thus, supposing that the taxi driver has freely exercised his rational capacities in pursuing his line of work, we make permissible use of these capacities as a means only if we behave in a way that he could, when exercising his rational capacities, consent to — for instance, by paying an agreed on price.
Third, the idea of an end has three senses for Kant, two positive senses and a negative sense. An end in the first positive sense is a thing we will to produce or bring about in the world. For instance, if losing weight is my end, then losing weight is something I aim to bring about. An end in this sense guides my actions in that once I will to produce something, I then deliberate about and aim to pursue means of producing it if I am rational.
Once I have adopted an end in this sense, it dictates that I do something: I should act in ways that will bring about the end or instead choose to abandon my goal. An end in the negative sense lays down a law for me as well, and so guides action, but in a different way. Korsgaard offers self-preservation as an example of an end in a negative sense: We do not try to produce our self-preservation. Rather, the end of self-preservation prevents us from engaging in certain kinds of activities, for instance, picking fights with mobsters, and so on.
That is, as an end, it is something I do not act against in pursuing my positive ends, rather than something I produce.
Humanity is in the first instance an end in this negative sense: It is something that limits what I may do in pursuit of my other ends, similar to the way that my end of self-preservation limits what I may do in pursuit of other ends. Insofar as it limits my actions, it is a source of perfect duties. Now many of our ends are subjective in that they are not ends that every rational being must have.
Humanity is an objective end, because it is an end that every rational being must have. Hence, my own humanity as well as the humanity of others limit what I am morally permitted to do when I pursue my other, non-mandatory, ends. The humanity in myself and others is also a positive end, though not in the first positive sense above, as something to be produced by my actions.
Rather, it is something to realize, cultivate or further by my actions. Becoming a philosopher, pianist or novelist might be my end in this sense. When my end is becoming a pianist, my actions do not, or at least not simply, produce something, being a pianist, but constitute or realize the activity of being a pianist.
Insofar as the humanity in ourselves must be treated as an end in itself in this second positive sense, it must be cultivated, developed or fully actualized. And insofar as humanity is a positive end in others, I must attempt to further their ends as well. In so doing, I further the humanity in others, by helping further the projects and ends that they have willingly adopted for themselves. Proper regard for something with absolute value or worth requires respect for it.
But this can invite misunderstandings. When I respect you in this way, I am positively appraising you in light of some achievement or virtue you possess relative to some standard of success. If this were the sort of respect Kant is counseling then clearly it may vary from person to person and is surely not what treating something as an end-in-itself requires. For instance, it does not seem to prevent me from regarding rationality as an achievement and respecting one person as a rational agent in this sense, but not another.
And Kant is not telling us to ignore differences, to pretend that we are blind to them on mindless egalitarian grounds. In such cases of respecting you because of who or what you are, I am giving the proper regard to a certain fact about you, your being a Dean for instance. This sort of respect, unlike appraisal respect, is not a matter of degree based on your having measured up to some standard of assessment.
We are to respect human beings simply because they are persons and this requires a certain sort of regard. We are not called on to respect them insofar as they have met some standard of evaluation appropriate to persons.
And, crucially for Kant, persons cannot lose their humanity by their misdeeds — even the most vicious persons, Kant thought, deserve basic respect as persons with humanity. Although Kant does not state this as an imperative, as he does in the other formulations, it is easy enough to put it in that form: Act so that through your maxims you could be a legislator of universal laws.
This sounds very similar to the first formulation. However, in this case we focus on our status as universal law givers rather than universal law followers.
This is of course the source of the very dignity of humanity Kant speaks of in the second formulation. A rational will that is merely bound by universal laws could act accordingly from natural and non-moral motives, such as self-interest. But in order to be a legislator of universal laws, such contingent motives, motives that rational agents such as ourselves may or may not have, must be set aside.
Hence, we are required, according to this formulation, to conform our behavior to principles that express this autonomy of the rational will — its status as a source of the very universal laws that obligate it. The Autonomy Formula presumably does this by putting on display the source of our dignity and worth, our status as free rational agents who are the source of the authority behind the very moral laws that bind us.
This formulation has gained favor among Kantians in recent years see Rawls, ; Hill, Many see it as introducing more of a social dimension to Kantian morality.
The intuitive idea behind this formulation is that our fundamental moral obligation is to act only on principles which could earn acceptance by a community of fully rational agents each of whom have an equal share in legislating these principles for their community.
Kant claimed that all of these CI formulas were equivalent. Unfortunately, he does not say in what sense. Thus, his claim that the formulations are equivalent could be interpreted in a number of ways. There are remaining doubts some commentators have, however, about whether this strategy can capture the full meaning of the Humanity Formula or explain all of the duties that Kant claims to derive from it Wood , ; Cureton Perhaps, then, if the formulas are not equivalent in meaning, they are nevertheless logically interderivable and hence equivalent in this sense.
That would have the consequence that the CI is a logical truth, and Kant insists that it is not or at least that it is not analytic. Since the CI formulas are not logical truths, then, it is possible that they could be logically interderivable. However, despite his claim that each contains the others within it, what we find in the Groundwork seems best interpreted as a derivation of each successive formula from the immediately preceding formula.
There are, nonetheless, a few places in which it seems that Kant is trying to work in the opposite direction. One is found in his discussion of the Humanity Formula. But he postulates humanity is absolutely valuable.
Thus , we must act only on maxims that can be universal laws. This we think anomolous discussion may well get at some deep sense in which Kant thought the formulations were equivalent. Nonetheless, this derivation of the universal law formulation from the Humanity Formulation seems to require a substantive, synthetic claim, namely, that humanity is indeed absolutely valuable. The most straightforward interpretation of the claim that the formulas are equivalent is as the claim that following or applying each formula would generate all and only the same duties Allison This seems to be supported by the fact that Kant used the same examples through the Law of Nature Formula and the Humanity Formula.
In other words, respect for humanity as an end in itself could never lead you to act on maxims that would generate a contradiction when universalized, and vice versa. The subjective differences between formulas are presumably differences that appeal in different ways to various conceptions of what morality demands of us. But this difference in meaning is compatible with there being no practical difference, in the sense that conformity to one formulation cannot lead one to violate another formulation.
Most readers interpret Kant as holding that autonomy is a property of rational wills or agents. It contains first and foremost the idea of laws made and laid down by oneself, and, in virtue of this, laws that have decisive authority over oneself. Consider how political freedom in liberal theories is thought to be related to legitimate political authority: A state is free when its citizens are bound only by laws in some sense of their own making — created and put into effect, say, by vote or by elected representatives.
The laws of that state then express the will of the citizens who are bound by them. An autonomous state is thus one in which the authority of its laws is in the will of the people in that state, rather than in the will of a people external to that state, as when one state imposes laws on another during occupation or colonization. In the latter case, the laws have no legitimate authority over those citizens. Type of paper. Academic level. Pages words. Read more. Plagiarism-free papers To ensure that all the papers we send to our clients are plagiarism free, they are all passed through a plagiarism detecting software.
Calculate the price of your order Type of paper needed:. Pages: words. You will get a personal manager and a discount. Academic level:. We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, at AM. Total price:. What advantages do you get from our Achiever Papers' services? All our academic papers are written from scratch All our clients are privileged to have all their academic papers written from scratch.
We do not offer pre-written essays All our essays and assignments are written from scratch and are not connected to any essay database. Urgent orders are delivered on time Do you have an urgent order that you need delivered but have no idea on how to do it? We provide quality assignment help in any format We have writers who are well trained and experienced in different writing and referencing formats.
Order a custom-written paper of high quality. Order Now or Free Inquiry. How do we ensure our clients are satisfied with our essay writing services?
You can have the privilege of paying part by part for long orders thus you can enjoy flexible pricing. We also give discounts for returned customers are we have returned customer discounts.
We also give our clients the privilege of keeping track of the progress of their assignments. You can keep track of all your in-progress assignments. Having many years of experience, we are aware of many things as we have practiced a lot over the time and thus we are able to satisfy our customer needs. We offer charts and PowerPoint slides for visual papers to our clients.
We have professional editors who pass through completed assignments to ensure all instructions were followed. They also ensure all assignments are error free. We also offer free revisions to our clients for assignments delivered. The free revision is offered within 7 days after the assignment has been delivered. We offer free revision until our client is satisfied with the work delivered. You are guaranteed of confidentiality and authenticity By using our website, you can be sure to have your personal information secured.
Our sample essays Categories. All samples. Journal article. Response essay. Analysis any type. Discussion Essay. Argumentative essays. Annotated bibliography. Case study. Research proposal. Term paper. Research paper. Essay any type. Creative writing. Reflect on this topic. Explain how a particular theoretical perspective applies to your own experience, personal or professional.
Describe the social situation in the context of social psychological theory and research, and appraise the factors that impact your behavior as well as the role your own actions play in producing and perpetuating the situation.
Microsoft SharePoint Blog. SharePoint tools are incredibly simple and intuitive, even for novice users. However, the personal blogs are limited to viewers with MSU accounts. Google Sites has a well-developed set of tools, and its ease of use make it a great option for hosting.
Paid Options:. Migration is essentially a copy-paste function, and LAMP Stack works with genuine domain names such as mysite.
0コメント