Kant's Formalism Theory defines moral judgments because laws. These kinds of laws need to be concrete and not to waiver once collection (Kant, 1948, n. l. ). Formalism theory shows that your activities are to be arranged as the universal regulations that define your judgment. Immanuel Kant added that these laws and regulations as well as your activities are to be cement going forward for all similar situations. As I apply this theory to Warner Case #5, I see the fact that Prosecuting Legal professional will have to follow his view on almost all cases with the same manner. If he chooses to not disclose unhealthy guy's facts he will have to follow the same universal legislation on all the other cases, regardless of the possible result. Analyzing this theory, mainly because it relates to the situation, I see a concern where the lawyer would, not simply violate ethical guidelines, yet judicial ones. Under this kind of theory he could be bound to stick to the concrete rules that this individual has created. Examining this theory I see that it leaves all of the laws and rules approximately every individual. Additionally, it condemns the rule maker to follow what ever moral law they have developed. If they learn and have a better understanding they can't modify their laws and regulations as it is concrete per this theory. You may have a large group following their particular personal pair of rules and distinguishing their own laws since right and wrong.
Margen, Immanuel, 1948. Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals, Paton, London. Spark Notes Editors, 2014. " Spark Take note on Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. вЂќ SparkNotes. com.
Sources: Kant, Immanuel, 1948. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Honnete, Paton, Greater london.
Spark Remarks Editors, 2014. " Spark Note on Grounding intended for the Metaphysics of Morals. вЂќ SparkNotes. com.