Sartre’s distinction between “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself”.
In philosophy, this is a significant concept that has been analyzed dramatically over the years. Sartre makes a varied distinction between being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Based on a thorough explanation, being-in-itself relies on three characterizations: being is what and being is in itself. Accordingly, being in itself is contingent and not related to any possibility of existence (“Lecture on Sartre”, 2020). The necessity derived from this aspect gives a higher chance through which different virtues are associated with an individual. It achieves the perspective of being as is what it is, and refers to an ideal concept characterized by accepting a reasonable condition. There are a lot of conceptual thoughts regarding this construct. The basis behind this analogy is that entities exist in themselves and do not involve unique mind constructions. It means that it does not depend entirely on external forces, but is dependent on reduced necessity.
In contrast, being for itself is another common analogy that invokes a high involvement in consciousness. According to Sartre’s thinking, this analogy is highly dependent on how the mind favors knowledge (“Lecture on Sartre”, 2020). It defines a strong relationship between different existing objects and how the human mind thinks. Unlike the “it is what it is,” this concept shows peculiarity in directedness, and intentionality (“Deontological Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)”, 2020). In this case, it is assigned to the different traits of it is that it is not. As a result, nothingness in enslaved to the human mind where actions are embedded and related to the different objects. Either way, categorization is eminent, especially when about various things of the world and how they affect different actions. Besides, it involves different intrinsic capabilities that have priority for their efforts.
Immanuel Kant’s theory of moral behavior
The method of moral action is highly advocated for especially in ethical constructs. It defines and dictates the different ways through which human behavior is categorized as good or bad. Besides, it links the different behavioral patterns that are necessary for forming relationships. The moral theory is a deontological theory which highly depends on the rightful or wrongful nature of human beings. According to Kant, he indicates a close correlation between human behavior and categorical imperatives (“Categorical Imperative”, 2020). It looks at this as an objective alternative to human morals. Speculations raised contrary to this argument cannot fail to agree with the idea that morality is inclined to categorical imperatives. In contrast, there is a high dependence on categorical imperative and non-sequential in ethics. All moral requirements are justified as immoral or moral, depending on how deep human desire is engraved. It means that every immoral act that is exhibited by individuals is considered wrong. Through this, Kant indicates how they go against the already set demands for categorical imperative. This is because categorical imperative plays a vital role in ensuring moral actions are gauged in developing moral judgments. Non-consequential, according to ethical constructs, shows the different ways that morality is considered non-consequential (“Categorical Imperative”, 2020). A more convincing notion is how categorical imperative directs behavior through mental alteration. In essence, moral law is highly regarded as a global construct. The central idea concept behind this is how dictates the notions of equality, and forbidding different aspects of ethical behavior. The categorical imperative intends to invoke a notion of impartial thinking where one recognizes the right and wrong. Doing this makes it possible to perform critical decision making with regards to the type of behavior. After all, mental components are eminent in a person and highly determine the relationship between ethics and significant forms of thinking. In most cases, the idea remains how the definition of good or bad affects the mental constructs which ultimately define behavior.
Ethical theories
The main aim behind this is that it acts as a basis through which behavior is dictated. In that context, it is plausible that ethical concerns follow a defined principle structure that accommodates human action (“Teacher’s values and ethical principles”, 2018). Ethical principles must, therefore, be taught. The different importance that emanates from incorporating ethical principles in actions cannot be underrated in any way. It ensures that there is high maintenance of dignity. Respect for humanity and efforts attributed to human activity is evaluated and dignified. As a result, people get a truthful trait in which information and activities laid down are genuine and fair enough. Ethical principles make it easy to perform critical decision making through a dependent or independent capabilities of the mind. All these make the process of reasoning plausible.
Either way, it is right to say that ethical principles are innately based on different concepts. Since ethics depends solely on the choices and decisions people make, it lies within the intrinsic nature of a person. It means that decisions coming from within a person have a higher chance of affecting them before affecting them. Either way, ethical behavior constitutes different innate thoughts of the brain (“Teacher’s values and ethical principles”, 2018). A lot of debate has gone through with scholars arguing how ethical principles do not exist. The argument indicates that human beings do not perform an action depending on ethical principles already defined. They institute their thoughts based on the circumstances and the situation they are in at the moment. It means that they prioritize themselves to the extent that any decision, though ethically wrong, has to favor their wellbeing.