well firstly, to say that we must take certain actions for certain goals he meant that we must obey duty. The duty of a human is not to kill another and this is universally true, murder IS bad. The analogy you draw from is true but Kant was not saying that everyone must act in a particular way in every given situation, it's a lot more liberal than that, rather he would say that there are certain ways we definitely SHOULDN'T act. Besides, eating is generally a very neutral act and in this situation we might disregard it as simply a circumstance which has no moral or immoral option. If you were to eat the poisonous food this would not necessarily suggest that every should eat poisonous food, but rather that when placed in a position of poison vs starvation they would make this decision. But i concede that it is an interesting issue.
But, for Kant, morality was derived from the rationality of duty, we may rationally assert that we should not ever kill another person because this is a rationally bad action, thus we have rationally prescribed a morality to this situation that is objective and not from the individual's perceptions but rather their rationale. Yes, it's untrue that reactions don't necessarily occur the same under all conditions but that is entirely different and that argument would compare the noumenological to the phenomenological, a comparison that seems generally illogical as we cannot expect an idea to exist by the same restrictions that an atom does, it's simply not necessary. The universality is a rule on how to act, was that unclear?
Admittedly, and Kant concedes that so long as the interest is that person's well-being then we may manipulate them towards their own interests but this is a rare situation and what Kant hoped to put across here is that the person is a person in themselves and, as such, is not subject to your desires if these desires are not the desire to be good to them. if that makes sense?
As i stated, this is somewhat true but what he states is that we should simply act witha strong enough sense of moral conviction that we do not draw on religious morality or that of others to make our decisions. What Kant provides us with is not the actual moral decision but rather the framework by which to act, setting down certain rules but otherwise remaining generally persuasive and not dogmatic. Granted he does contradict himself slightly but as mentioned before this is for the good of those he intends to influence and not for his own agenda, thus it is ok.
Hope this has all been coherent and helpful
But, for Kant, morality was derived from the rationality of duty, we may rationally assert that we should not ever kill another person because this is a rationally bad action, thus we have rationally prescribed a morality to this situation that is objective and not from the individual's perceptions but rather their rationale. Yes, it's untrue that reactions don't necessarily occur the same under all conditions but that is entirely different and that argument would compare the noumenological to the phenomenological, a comparison that seems generally illogical as we cannot expect an idea to exist by the same restrictions that an atom does, it's simply not necessary. The universality is a rule on how to act, was that unclear?
Admittedly, and Kant concedes that so long as the interest is that person's well-being then we may manipulate them towards their own interests but this is a rare situation and what Kant hoped to put across here is that the person is a person in themselves and, as such, is not subject to your desires if these desires are not the desire to be good to them. if that makes sense?
As i stated, this is somewhat true but what he states is that we should simply act witha strong enough sense of moral conviction that we do not draw on religious morality or that of others to make our decisions. What Kant provides us with is not the actual moral decision but rather the framework by which to act, setting down certain rules but otherwise remaining generally persuasive and not dogmatic. Granted he does contradict himself slightly but as mentioned before this is for the good of those he intends to influence and not for his own agenda, thus it is ok.
Hope this has all been coherent and helpful
