More handpicked essays just for you.
The discussion between mill and kant about ethics
What Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s ideas were on ethics
John stuart mill kantian ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the following, I will present the hypothetical case of Superman vs. Lex Luthor; it is wrong for Superman to prevent Lex Luthor from obtaining his goal of world domination. Luthor is a villain, his actions are “evil,” which is the reason Superman and Luther are in conflict; but Luthor believes that “the ends justify the means” meaning although his actions are disagreeable, his end goal is to better humanity as a whole. I will then analyses the case according to three ethical theories, namely Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. On one end of the spectrum lays Superman, an alien who from birth is comparable to god, and on the opposite side lays Lex Luthor, a genius human who comes from nothing and created a financial empire. Superman …show more content…
Lex Luthor is a genius in the fields of business management, political science, leadership, and all sorts of sciences. Luthor is able to apply his knowledge to make …show more content…
Superman’s character of always doing the right thing, follows along with Kant’s theories more than the others. Immanuel Kant’s accounts is most plausible in this case. The choices Superman makes are always done out of perfect duty. The concept of categorical imperative, follows along with the majority of the actions Superman takes. Superman’s decision making is done out of good will which is a “good in itself.” Some might say that Aristotle’s accounts is most plausible in this case. Everything about Aristotle’s ethical theories points to Superman performs virtuous acts which leads to a life of happiness. Lex’s actions not only harms others, but also harms his chances of cultivating a virtuous character. The drawback of Aristotle’s theory in Superman’s case is Superman’s longevity. Aristotle’s theory, makes it so that one can only obtain happiness at the end of their lives; there is no telling what the future holds, Superman might not always take the correct actions. In the case of Mill’s theory, one can see that neither of Superman’s identities seek out higher pleasures; one only sees him live his life day by day; either stopping the bad guys or writing articles about bad guys. So out of the three theories Kant’s is most plausible for this
...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.
The mythology of Superman is a paradigm that embodies the cultural reality of the era; constructed around an archetype of ideology, fantasies of human spiritual ambiguity, a religious messiah, and a semiotic representation of modernity. In further study, Superman can be identified to have specifically changed to adhere to American culture in three distinctive periods; midst the Great Depression and WWII, post WWII and finally the socially progressive change of the Vietnam period. In each chapter Superman was re-imagined to meet the definition of the period, a tool of propaganda over that of entertainment. Currently, America is entering a new phase of cultural shift, and thus Superman will be redefined to represent the ideologies of truth, justice, and the American way of that required era. Yet, the mere surface mythology of Superman has applications to cultural ideologies, questions of human freedom, dreams in a Freudian nature, and the complex relation of fantasy and reality which required introduction before in-depth research.
Perceptions of the superhero and supervillain are mainly based on subjective definitions of each concept. These observations often lead to a definitive dichotomy that precisely splits characters into two impermeable divisions. However, this stringent separation is unable to account for the characters that are not at the extreme ends of their respective side. Neither is this rift capable of classifying characters that flirt with both sides of the superhero-supervillain dichotomy. Therefore it is imperative to analyze the established criteria for both superhero and supervillain to derive a more adequate explanation. Most superheroes are not easily characterized, but rather fall somewhere between Superman, the bastion of moral purity, and Doctor Doom, the display of indubitable corruption. This solicits genesis of an entirely new notion about the differences between superheroes and supervillains. A more precise idea is that superheroes and supervillains are lined on a spectrum that spans from pure good to pure evil. Disparities between superheroes and supervillains are not black and white, but rather these characters are on a spectrum that radically changes based on individual cases.
In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of
Emmanuel Kant was a influential philosopher and strong proponent of the modern era. Besides his large contribution to epistemology and metaphysics, his work in ethics was just as substantial. Kant’s ethics came to propose an objective morality, where moral judgments is not only true according to a person 's subjective view. He believed the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequence but the motive behind it. Additionally, the “only motive that can endow an act with moral value, is one that arises from universal principles discovered by reason” (McCormick). Through Kant’s ethics, he demonstrates this duty through his unconditional moral principle, the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative expresses that morality is not about the outcome (good or bad), but the right action regardless of the outcome. It is the responsibility to do one 's duty for its own sake and not in pursuit of one’s own desire.
To thoroughly comprehend Kant’s moral philosophy, we must first understand two key elements by which it stands: good will and the categorical imperative. Primordially, Kant believes in good will. Some value happiness, justice or even authority; Kant, on the other hand, values our good will above anything else. Good will, he contends, is our commitment to do our duty for its own sake (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70). In other words, we will not be held accountable for actions out of our reach, only our ability and willingness to act in a good way—our ultimate duty. He believes this characteristic possesses unconditional value (value in and of itself, or on its own) and as such deserves to be exercised under all possible circumstances (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70-75). He goes as far as to say that actions will posses moral worth only if they are a result of our good will, similar to that which we intend to achieve(Shafer-Landau, pg. 70).
Kant opens up Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by saying, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will,” and it is with this sentence that he introduces his idea of non-consequentialism (p. 151). Non-consequentialism can be described as a philosophical theory that states that the morality of our behaviour does not depend on the consequences of our actions, but instead depends on the intent with which we perform these actions. With this piece of writing, Kant attempts to delve deeper into the principles of human morality, discover what makes an action right or wrong, and determine the correct motives for performing any action.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
In conclusion my expectations were met because we all want to be a certain hero in our everyday lives but sometimes don’t know which one is actually the better and more positive one. Strength, power, intelligence, and authority are the most important things the outlaw hero and official hero will bring even if they are above a certain rule or really beneath it. Outlaws are not always the bad guys, but are not always the good guys either. In this case Batman is the good guy disguised as the bad guy. Official heroes are always the good guys no matter the circumstance. Superman in this case is the good guy disguised as the actual good guy. Being above the law or against it, official heroes and outlaw heroes will always paint the picture that you can be strong, powerful, intelligent, and have the authority you deserve.
The Utilitarian moral perspective and Kant’s moral perspective offer fundamentally contrasting ethical philosophies based on the theoretical reasoning behind choosing a particular action. One difference between these theories is that Kantianism focuses on the intentions and moral obligation behind our actions, while Utilitarians emphasize on the consequences of our actions. According to Kant, one should act according to a maxim or personal principle that guides decisions. These intentions propose rules to oneself when deciding what to do (p.127, Weston). To test if one’s motives are ethical, they must decide if this is a rule that they would want everyone else to follow. Utilitarians deem an act unethical 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.
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Immanuel Kant." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 404-16. Print.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
Moral duty and moral law can be expressed as categorical imperative. We must look at categorical imperatives in order to determine what we ought to do regardless of what we want to happen. It concerns not the matter of the action, or its intended result, but its form and the principle that results. What is essentially good consists in the mental disposition of consequences that result without it being interfered. Kant’s great moral principle, categorical imperative, has to be a priori.
be. With his courageous efforts to save people in need, Superman has instilled one view of