Kantians believe “human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life.” In other words, humans are free rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for the enjoyment or happiness of another.
Happiness isn't always to be not noted when making selections in existence. It is not unimportant. Kant does trust that all different matters are identical, it is better to be satisfied than to be miserable. And he wouldn't suppose that looking out for our own happiness is immoral. searching out for humans' happiness follows from their intrinsic and countless fee as autonomous, unfastened, rational beings. however, happiness is, by using far, no longer the most vital element while making moral choices. For delight that comes at the cost of a person's freedom, of a person's existence, is not really worth it. Kant believes that liars and cheats and abusers and exploiters do not have the ethical proper to be happy. Such happiness is undeserved. consistent with utilitarians, there's a completely close connection between human cause and happiness -- their calculative thought of motive is inside the provider of happiness. this is its number one function. but Kant believes that happiness isn't always completely unique ownership of humans. Nor does he assume that motive is the first-class manner of accomplishing it. We appear to be no longer specifically proper at knowing what makes us happy. We seem to be now not mainly desirable at understanding what makes others satisfied. The feature of cause isn't, more often than not, to make ourselves or others happy, but to live rightly, come what may also.
Learn more about Happiness here:- https://brainly.com/question/7292814
#SPJ4
