The task that stands before me in this paper is to address two situations and determine the ethical parameters in which a person should act. The two philosophical approaches that I will examine the situations with the Kantian and Utilitarian point of view.
Kant deciphers his ethical questions by examining a person's motivation for performing an act regardless of the consequences. A person who utilizes the Kantian view believes that the only pure good is pure human reason without consequences. This pure human reason works without the influence of human emotions and desires. A truly good act as defined by Kant is performed because of an obligation to the categorical imperative. The objectives and personal agendas of the individual performing the act must kept separate and distinct.
Utilitarism makes ethical decisions based on the consequences of the action taken. Unlike the Kantian view the motives are not important just the consequences. The action is measured by how much happiness or sadness the action creates. The ideal ethical decision is the one that creates the most happiness and the least amount of sadness. It is nearly impossible to have different degrees of freedom since a person would have to experience all the various degrees of freedom to determine what degree of happiness is better than the other.
The first situation deals with a thief who stole from the millionaire. In this case, Kant would examine the motives of the thief. The thief is stealing for himself regardless of his situation. Even if his family is poor and struggling. The thief is still furthering himself. The reasons for the thief stealing from the wealthy man doesn't matter. Stealing is against the universal law that it is wrong to steal from a...
... middle of paper ...
... are beneficial. The father dies peacefully and happily, knowing his dying wish will be followed. The girl made her father very happy by promising to follow his wish. The only negative would be the lingering guilt that she might marry somebody outside her religion, but this is only a possibility.
The Utilitarian would agree that telling the father that she will promise not to marry a man outside her religious affiliation. This decision brings the most pleasure on both sides of the issue, and prevents the pain and anguish experienced by her father. This analysis is strong because it suits the utilitarian point of view so well. The daughter is doing something that will bring the greatest amount of happiness to greatest amount of people. The main fault to this argument is that the daughter had to be deceitful to her dying father to bring that happiness to her father.
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
Humans are unique in the way that they can use reason. As a human, there is the choice to use practical reason and have freedom because people have unconditional worth. Kant would say that Haystack is treating people as means, rather than ends because it is taking away their freedom by making them pay for spots. One could argue and say Eric is concerned about the environment because he said, “His dream is to reduce congestion, cut greenhouse gases, make urban life easier and make some money”, but that is not fully the case because when an alternate idea of having karma points rather than money was proposed, he turned down the idea. Kant would say Eric was using people as means rather than ends to make money through the buying and selling of spots. From examining this particular case through the deontological perspective, it can be said that Eric was acting merely in accordance with duty rather than acting from duty. He had an ulterior motive of making money and being able to find parking spots more easily, rather than considering the consequences it would have on the people that are unable to afford to pay for parking each
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
Utilitarianism is based on choices that bring upon happiness. Utilitarianism is the type of moral reasoning that plans out an outcome where the majority of the people are happy. Many of us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to
The theory that I have chosen is the theory of ethical utilitarianism. Many people use this theory every day without even knowing we are using it, it’s is so natural that we don’t even think about it or wonder how we became to using it. Ethical utilitarianism is one of the many answers to the question of why an action or something is morally correct or incorrect. This is has been an ongoing question that many people have made theories towards trying to answer it and the theory of utilitarianism is the one that I think answers it the most accurately.
Consider the ethical theory of utilitarianism as discussed in chapters 7 and 8 of The Elements of Moral Philosophy. A. Explain the difference between act (classical) and rule versions of utilitarianism. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? B. Explain the drawbacks to consequentialist ethical theories? What potential factors do consequentialists exclude from ethical debates? And, what examples did John Stuart Mill provide in Utilitarianism to support his principle of utility in ethics? C. Use utilitarianism to analyze a contemporary moral dilemma not discussed in the book. Construct an argument for a particular moral stance regarding this dilemma. Provide at least one
Utilitarianism provides a method for calculating the moral worth of specific actions in terms of their consequences. Utilitarianism teaches that happiness comprises the fundamental purpose and pursuit of human life. Therefore, the value and worth of any given action should be evaluated in terms of its ability to produce happiness. The utilitarian defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain, and teaches that in all cases individuals should act in such a way as to achieve the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism...
...ple of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, in fact, he defended the principle of personal gain or personal benefit. The main law of nature in utilitarianism is the desire for personal happiness and the very continuation of the human race depends on the implementation of self-love. Kantian ethics is different. When we treat approvingly to another act, we are guided not mind public benefit or harm from these actions. We are aware of how these actions would have responded to us, and in us because there is consent or not consent to our own feelings. This is the property of our organization, and it has evolved from public life. We just experience with other people what they are going through and criticize the one who caused any suffering, then we attach ourselves to the same condemnation if they themselves cause of suffering to another person.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
In order to act, one must have will, which is the determination of the mind to act. Kant argues that we need good will because it is not only good in itself but to develop it, we also must have reason behind it. According to Kant, one’s personal will is only good if they are motivated by nothing other than duty. Kant argues that to fulfill our moral obligations, we must act from duty and offers three essential principles. The first proposition states that an action must be done from duty in order to have moral worth. Therefore we must act from duty rather than act in accordance with duty because then our action would not be morally worthy. The second proposition, maxims, states that an action done from duty has moral worth in the maxim that guides it. Kant clearly proposes that an action must be done for its own sake instead of the sake for anything else, “an action from duty h...
Believing a ‘good will’ was the only unqualifiedly good virtue, Kant said every other virtue could be used for an immoral purpose. Kant drew the line on whether actions were deemed acceptable in the categorical imperative, which states that an unconditional moral is binding in all circumstances and does not depend on a person’s inclination. To form more sense of this, a person could think “will everyone act as I propose to do?”, if not, then do not perform the act. Also, “is my action, not merely for my own purpose, but respects the goals of human beings?”, where the moral of the actions need to establish a law for a hypothetical kingdom.
Utilitarianism is a difficult topic to fathom, for it requires a large amount of questions and self-evaluation. In order to understand utilitarianism, think of bad versus bad. A principle stating that when one is faced with two difficult decisions, which choice would be less harmful for all of those involved? John Stuart Mill and Bernard Williams describe utilitarianism as pain versus pleasure or the lesser of two evils approach, and how that approach ties into ones ultimate choice. Utilitarianism is not about the pursuit of happiness, rather, it is really about picking which evil is the best evil.
According to Drolet, Marie-Josée, and Anne Hudon (p.51), two main theories attempt to explain in depth and justify moral laws and principles; utilitarianism and deontological theories. Jeremy Bentham and John Mill developed the theory of utilitarianism while Immanuel Kant developed the deontological theory. These two theories are based on how the consequences of a given act impact on an individual. The deontological theory is based on the one’s moral judgment rather than the set rules and regulations. On the other hand, the utilitarianism theory focuses on the consequences of a given deed. This paper primarily focuses on how a strict utilitarian and a strict deontologist would respond to George’s scenario. The arguments will be based on the
Morality has been a subject of many philosophical discussions that has prompted varied responses from different philosophers. One of the most famous approaches to morality is that of Immanuel Kant in his writing Groundwork of Metaphysics of Morals. Kant in this work argues that the reason for doing a particular action or the drive to do good things is a fundamental basis of defining moral quality in a person. To him, an action could be considered morally right only if the motivation behind doing that action was out of ‘goodwill’. When he defines these moral rules, he characterizes them in the form of imperatives – the hypothetical imperative and categorical imperative. While hypothetical imperatives deal with motivations and actions that lead to a particular end, categorical imperatives are a product of rational behavior in human beings. Kant considers such categorical imperatives to be the moral basis for life.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.