1. Explain Onora O’neil’s argument for preferring Kantian ethics to Utilitarianism.
2. How would Richard Taylor respond to O’neil’s defense of Kantianism?
In the following questions, Onora O’neil defends Kantian ethics while Richard
Taylor agrees more with the Utilitarian ethics view. To fully understand both views and
why each author defends their view, a brief introduction of each author and who they are
is necessary. Onora O’neil is a philosophy professor at Cambridge University, while
Richard Taylor also teaches philosophy, at the University of Rochester. He has written
many books on ethics and metaphysics. He strongly criticizes Kant’s philosophy by
saying it is too abstract. The Philosopher Kant in contrast with Mill deals with,
deontological ethics that, means rule based ethics, which basically deals with an either
wrong or right way of action. For example, in terms of stealing, Kant would say that this
action or act is always wrong. Mill (Utilitarian ethics) on the other hand who deals with
Consequentialist ethics which basically means that our actions have a consequence but
that it all depends on the situation or incident of for example, stealing is right or wrong.
Mill, who is famous for Utilitarianism, decides on every incident of a situation. Both of
these Philosophers are mostly concern with principal of individual action, which is our
intent or our acts in general. The difference between them is whether these acts are either
right or wrong. While Mill focuses on the consequences of actions, Kant does not, and
puts more emphasis on our actions.
1. To fully explain Onora O’neil’s argument for preferring Kantian ethics to
Utilitarianism, a summary is needed of what Kantianism is all about. Onora O’neil’s
argument is very useful because it explains in detail a review of Kantianism and a
comparison of this with Utilitarianism. The main requirement Onora O’neil focuses on is
that persons be treated as ends in themselves and on the value of human life. In her essay
she also states what is right and wrong with both sides. The theory called Kantianism
written by the famous philosopher Kant is difficult to understand O’neil tells us, because
Kant gives a number of versions of what he calls the Principal of Morality. O’nei...
... middle of paper ...
...ere we want to go. It is on our answer to this question
that our whole happiness and our worth as human beings depends…. Our problem is to
find those answers that do in fact work (Taylor/ pp.69).” Kant and O’neil do not answer
these questions. Taylor seems to value more the life of persons just like Utilitarianism
has a great respect for life, while Kant has more respect for persons as a whole. Taylor
would disagree with O’neil’s defense of Kantianism and prefer a less abstract moral
system that is more in close contact with human nature, that is more realistic in terms of
its goals. Because Taylor was disdainful of Kant meaning that he was prideful of him
and thought that his theory was too abstract he would probably react with trying to make
his form of Kant less abstract and more metaphysical, and since Taylor has been known
to study this, perhaps he will reach a conclusion of happiness and what the worth of
humans depends on simply by making Kant’s theory more reasonable and detailed in its
content with full explanations, rather as O’neil shows, filled with too much philosophical
ideas that do not offer full explanations, in other words too abstract.
Johnson, R 2014, ‘Kant's Moral Philosophy,’ The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Spring Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), .
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.
From the Middle ages, the church faced many problems such as the Babylonian Captivity and the Great Schism that hurt the prestige of the church. Most of the clergy lived in great luxury while most people were poor and they set an immoral example. The clergy had low education and many of them didn’t attend their offices. Martin Luther had witnessed this himself, “In 1510 he visited Rome and was shocked to find corruption on high ecclesiastical places”
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
After more than two thousands years, the same discussion topic is among the philosophers world. Until today, no one can be sure and give an exact answer on the question concerning the foundation of morality. With John Stuart Mill, there will have a whole new view of the concept of morality and its implications and applications.
In the Euthyphro, Socrates is making his way into the courthouse; however, prior to entering he had a discussion with a young priest of Athens, Euthyphro. This dialogue relates religion and justice to one another and the manner in which they correlate. Euthyphro feels as though justice necessitates religion and Socrates feels the opposite, religion necessitates justice. Euthyphro claims that religion is everything, justice, habits, traditions, customs, cultures, etc. all are derived from religion. Socrates went on to question what exactly would be the definition of pious. Euthyphro offered Socrates three definitions of pious and in all three Socrates was able to successfully find fault...
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.
Even though at the first glance, the two most influential philosophers in human history - Immanuel Kant and John-Stuart Mill seem to have a lot of disagreements on the central concepts of their moral philosophies – for example, while Kant is concerned more about the intentions of an action, Mill, on the other hand, believes that the consequences of an action are the only justification necessary for an act to be good or moral or right, they still have beliefs in common, such as the concept of the greater good and base their moral systems on a fundamental first principle.
This is a reasonable answer on all fronts. Not to say that Euthyphro was not a holy man, but he certainly could not define his own existence- which is the exact sentiment which Socrates was trying to provoke. There is a clear difference between the definition of Socrates and the definitions of Euthyphro.
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
In the groundwork of metaphysics of morals, Kant gives us several different formulations of this main principle that he uses. An over- simplified analogy of Kant's
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.