Argumentative Essay 1

704 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Immanuek kant - the formula of universal law

Kant’s Formula of Universal Law is determined a priori and it an idea that for something to be moral it must pass a universal test. In Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals he states to act as if the maxim of your action would become a universal law of nature. This means that an act can be considered the right thing to do if it can be applied to everyone else and it would be right for everyone else to act that way.
When looking at Dr. Tom’s actions as when considering Kant’s Formula of Universal Law, Tom’s actions do not pass the test. In the case Mary does not want her organs to be donated because she believes that she has a chance of survival. Tom knows that Mary is soon going to die so he takes Mary’s organs against her wishes and in turn saves the lives of three other patients. When testing this case with Kant’s Formula of Universal Law the maxim would be that Mary wants to live so she wants to keep her own organs. Tom knows that she will die soon and her organs can save three other people so he takes them. Putting this maxim to the test would be saying that if anyone was going to die soon, anybody could take any organs that they if those organs were to save a life even if it I against that donor’s wishes. The results from this test would conclude that Tom’s actions would not be coherent with Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.
If every doctor took organs from patients who were soon going to die in order to save others’ lives even though it was against that donor’s will, people would eventually stop going to the doctor. Also if Tom’s actions were to be universalized the idea of a person agreeing or disagreeing with being a donor would be trumped by another’s will to take whichever organs they please in order to save a ...

... middle of paper ...

...act of sacrificing oneself in most cases produces pain and lacks the product of pleasure.
Although taking one’s own life is not the right thing to do in terms of Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle, there is an exception to this act. If a person is to sacrifice them self it must be done in a way to increase the good of all for it to not be a waste. If Mary were to have consented in donating her organs before she died she would have done the right thing. She would have maximized happiness by saving the most possible lives that she could have; the three patients that needed her donations as soon as possible.
In conclusion, Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle would work best in this case because of Tom’s efforts to maximize happiness. His actions were right in terms of the Greatest Happiness Theory because he saved the lives of three people and maximized happiness.

Show More
Related

  • Categorical Imperative Theory: The Ideas Of Kant's Thought And Theory

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarian thought and theory are based on the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which exclaims that actions are considered moral only when they promote universal happiness and the absence of pain. In this paper, I argue that Kant’s Categorical Imperative is superior to utilitarianism because Kant’s Categorical Imperative allows for actions to be judged case by case, as opposed of what’s considered to be the best for maximizing happiness.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant´s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    926 Words  | 2 Pages

    The concept Kant is displaying in his work is the universal maxim. He believes in the idea of the will of every human being to be a part of the universal law. Individuals are to reflect upon their action by looking at the motivating principle behind their action. The question is would the motivation of my action be universally accepted or rejected? Kant is saying that we should look at the motivating principle behind our actions and compare that to how it would be seen on a universal level. Then ask, would we want another person to act with the same motivating principle? In all we are to act in a manner that the will of our action be a maxim that becomes a universal law.

    Read More

  • paper

    1137 Words  | 3 Pages

    First, I will discuss Mill’s principles and the requirements of his type of utilitarian ethics. Mill’s utilitarian principle can also be known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, which states that an action is good as long as it creates happiness. Mill sums up his principle by saying, “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill argues that everyone desires his or her own happiness and thinks that happiness is the one main goal of all humans. However, just because one person desires his happiness doesn’t mean that this one person’s happiness will contribute to the overall society’s happiness. For example, if a person finds happiness in killing innocent people then this is obviously not contributing to the overall happiness of society. Sure, this may make the killer happy, but the families of the victim and society would be deeply angered and saddened from this occurrence. One of the main factors of Mill’s principle is that an action is good as long is it promotes more happiness than pain for society not just for one individual. It is the net happiness that Mill is concerned with rather than just the sole amount of happiness. As long as an action constitutes greater happiness than pain then Mill would deem this action good or moral...

    Read More

  • When Self-Determination Runs Amok Summary

    896 Words  | 2 Pages

    As afore mentioned, Lachs criticizes Callahan’s classification of the power over life as a fundamental moral wrong. In his article, Callahan states, “it is a fundamental moral wrong for one person to give over his life and fate to another, whatever the good consequences, and no less a wrong for another person to have that kind of total, find power.” (659) Lachs disagrees with this statement and creates a scenario about kidney donation to ultimately show

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay

    851 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast over nature”. From the beginning of time man and nature has been in conflict with one another because, as a whole, there is no cooperating. Each one tirelessly wants its way. The Man is fighting for dominance and nature w never yielding its authority. In American Literature, many authors illustrate this theme in their writing. Specifically the writers Jack London in The Law Of Life, Stephen Crane The Open Boat and Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Fin. Each explores the relationship between humans and nature but with slightly different methods. Mark Twain uses nature in a realistic way, Jack London in a naturalistic way and Stephen Crane constitutes a combination of both.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill Free Will Analysis

    310 Words  | 1 Pages

    John Stuart Mill investigates free will and the reasoning behind making decisions in his theories of utilitarianism. The concept of utilitarianism explained by Mill, is to establish that the actions that causes the greatest happiness experienced by the greatest number of people are just and right. Mill explains that the quantity of happiness, as well as quality is the aphorism of which individuals should abide by. The opposite or reverse of this happiness is therefore considered wrong. Happiness is defined as pleasure or joyous emotion and the absence of pain and sadness. However, it is uncertain as to what is considered pleasure or pain of an individual. Moreover, freedom from pain is desirable to promote pleasure in an individual and this

    Read More

  • Kant On Lying

    767 Words  | 2 Pages

    Kant believes in developing a pure moral philosophy, a universal law, based on a priori concept of reasoning. A priori knowledge is the knowledge a person has before any experience. He also talks about a posteriori knowledge, which stands for the knowledge after experience. As a posteriori knowledge is depended on experiences, it cannot be considered in making a moral decision because it requires a general law. Kant also refuses to consider any kind of specific interests and circumstances in making a decision. Hence, lying is not an option, according to Kant, in making any kind of moral decision. He also emphasizes that consequences don't matter regardless of outcomes. Hence, the moral law is a general formula that is applicable in all situations. So, instead of commanding certain actions, Kant believes in expressing the principle that all the actions to make a decision should be undertaken with pure motives without consideration of the consequences. In other words, Kant is a stro...

    Read More

  • Into The Wild Argumentative Essay

    734 Words  | 2 Pages

    Have you ever felt stuck? Wherever you are, it’s the absolute last place you want to be. In the book Into the Wild, Chris McCandless feels stuck just like the average everyday person may feel. Chris finds his escape plan to the situation and feels he will free himself by going off to the wild. I agree with the author that Chris McCandless wasn’t a crazy person, a sociopath, or an outcast because he got along with many people very well, but he did seem somewhat incompetent, even though he survived for quite some time.

    Read More

  • John Harris Experiment Of The Survival Lottery

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Organ Transplantation

    573 Words  | 2 Pages

    The question arises whether a person’s claim to determine what transpires to their bodies afore and postmortem should be respected. Traditional medical ethics lean toward preserving the rights of the person. This translates into the act of not harvesting organs from the living or deceased unless valid consent has been obtained. The basis of this ethical policy lies in the deontological theories that were established by our philosophical forefathers, such as, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Refusing to acknowledge the individual rights of a potential donor; the doctor, or medical facility is committing an act of ethical betrayal of the donor, the family, the institution of medicine and the law. Thus, the individual rights of the donor must be upheld to the highest ethical degree.

    Read More

  • The Greatest Happiness Principle

    1362 Words  | 3 Pages

    The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness an action results in to the largest quantity of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes people should sacrifice as much as they can from their own possible happiness so that more people may obtain equal happiness that is sufficient. In doing so, those who are aiding others are creating a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent where everyone has just enough contentment that they do not feel pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an unbiased computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obligated to do so. In doing so, the single individual is saving the lives of a greater number of people, and thus creates more happiness than if he alone lived and the two or more people died.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay

    520 Words  | 2 Pages

    What makes a good person good? According to WikiHow, "We should learn to define our own morals ourselves. One of the simplest ways to do so is to love others, and treat them as you would like to be treated. Try to think of others before yourself. Even doing small things daily will greatly enrich and improve your life, and the lives of others around you." This quote shows us what we need to do in order to be what society thinks as, “good". In order to be a good person, you have to do good and moral things in your society consistently. However people might think that by doing one good thing once in a while will automatically make you a “good person”, but in reality it doesn’t.

    Read More

  • The Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Section One and Section Two of his work. Kant explores his position on his fundamental principle of morality, or his “categorical imperative”, or his idea that all actions are moral and “good” if they are performed as a duty. Such an idea is exemplified when he says, “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kant 14). The philosopher uses examples such as suicide and helping others in distress to apply his principal to possible real life situation. Kant is successful in regards to both issues. As a result, it means that categorical imperative can plausibly be understood as the fundamental principle of all morality. Kant’s reasoning for his categorical imperative is written in a way that makes the theory out to be very plausible.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    If we desire X, we ought to do Y. However, categorical imperatives are not subject to conditions. The Categorical Imperative is universally binding to all rational creatures because they are rational. Kant proposes three formulations: the Categorical Imperative in his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morality, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viability of the Universal Law formulation is tested by discussing two objections to it, mainly the idea that the moral laws are too absolute and the existence of false positives and false negatives.

    Read More

More about Argumentative Essay 1

Open Document