Mill writes that “… when he begins to deduce from this precept [the universal law test] any of the actual duties on morality, he fails … to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct” ( Troyer 97). In defending his own moral theory, Mill gives a similar example to Kant’s, explaining how the principle of utility does not justify lying. Mill writes that “… it would often be expedient … to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is one of the most useful… and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion… [a person who lies] acts as one of their own worst enemies” (Troyer 112). Mill’s rejection of lying as right course of action is based on the negative consequences it
It would be wrong, for example, to make a promise with the intention of breaking it because if everyone did that, no one would believe anyone's promises. In ethics, Kant tried to show that doing one's duty consisted in following only those principles that one would accept as applying equally to all. Kant objects most of all to the principle that one's own happiness can be the ground of morality. He rejects this possibility because well-being is not always proportionate to virtuous behavior. By this I mean that one manÕs well being is not always universal to all.
Desire or feelings cause action. Because reason alone can never cause action, morality is rooted in our feelings. Virtue arises from acting on a desire to help others. Hume's moral theory is therefore a virtue-centered morality rather than the natural-law morality, which saw morality as coming from God. Kant's notion of morality arose from his notion of a moral law; a law applicable to all people at all times, that imposes absolute duties on us.
If there was no maxims, then there would be no universal morality in which we could uphold. Although Kant says this, he still stresses the importance of free will. Even if something is a Categorical imperative or a universal maxim, he says it is not forceful to follow it through and that we are free whether or not to do the morally right
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that, “[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” 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.
Immanuel Kant's Theory Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) discussed many ethical systems and reasoning’s some were based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality. In Kant’s eyes, reason is directly correlated with morals and ideals. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for appropriateness or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the "right" reasons. Kant would argue that to make a promise for the wrong reason is not moral you might as well not make the promise.
On the other hand and in contrast, “a priori” concepts are ideas we reach as an end point of reasoning prior to or apart from any experience of how things occur in the world. Kant then claims that moral actions are supposed done for the reason of morality alone. This train of thought leads to the conclusion that an understanding of morality must be based on “a priori” concepts of reason. Truly moral ideas are then universally valid if and only if they are based on “a priori” concepts. From this idea of “a priori” concepts, Kant begins his thesis with the notion that the only thing in the world that is a qualified good is the “good will”, even if its efforts bring about a not necessarily good result.
Thinking back to universal law, based off of Kant’s theory, his approach when referencing stealing would The Choice be that stealing is bad and unacceptable no matter the case. The problem with that theory is that 3 it leaves no room for the unknown, variables, or life threatening situations. The decisions we make in life are not just as simply put as Kant’s theory of ethics.
Both philosophers unambiguously address the dispute of capital punishment as a moral responsibility in their ethical theories... ... middle of paper ... ...ors to capital punishment may challenge that it is immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter the provocation. But that is an object of faith, not of fact, just like the opposite position held by abolitionist detractors, including myself. However, as in Kant’s argument, capital punishment honors human dignity by treating the offender as a free being able to control his own will for good or for evil; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral awareness. Capital punishment celebrates the dignity of those whose lives were ended by the murder’s predation. Moral reason for upholding capital punishment is reverence for life itself.
An example would be life and death. Wherever there is life, there is always death to oppose it. Kant’s theory of how good must have bad and bad must have good is exactly like what yin and yang is so there is no doubt in why I agree with Kant’s claim. Apart from whether I think his claim is plausible or not, I truly believe that Kant’s theory on morality is the most accurate. I don’t think that a person’s morality is based on the consequences of their actions.