On July 17, 1981, several structures within the Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, Missouri collapsed killing 114 people, and injuring 216 (McFadden, 2017). The most notable feature of the hotel was the lobby, which consisted of a large open space in the center of the first floor, surrounded by three elevated walkways suspended from the roof on the second, third, and fourth floors, and an open roof atrium. On the night of the disaster, a dance party took place in the lobby, consisting of about 1,600 guests with many other guests observing the lobby events from the elevated walkways. Due to inadequate structural design of the walkways, the increased load due to the observers standing on the walkways placed on the support rods led to the fourth floor …show more content…
The hotel had opted to connect the sprinkler system water pipes to water tanks, rather than use a public source, which resulted in the hotel being unable to stop the downpour of water onto the lobby. One survivor, Mark Williams, who was the last person rescued from being trapped under the debris, noted that he spent nearly ten hours trapped, and was close to drowning before finally being saved (Murphy, 2011). Finally, firefighters realized that the closed lobby doors were the reason the water was building up in the lobby, and opened the doors, which allowed the water to be drained out.
Twenty-nine people were successfully rescued from being trapped, while the other 187 people injured during the initial collapse, who were able to walk, were told to leave the building during the rescue operations. Three other people who were removed from the rubble were transported to hospitals for treatment, where they would later die (McFadden,
…show more content…
One such way to analyze the ethical actions taken by G.C.E., Steel Havens Company, and the Hyatt Regency is to apply the deontological framework or duty ethics to the situation. Deontology is a branch of normative ethics in which the morality of individuals is judged based on the actions that he/she takes in the presence of a specific set of universal maxims or rules.
One such branch of deontology known as "Kantianism" or "Kantian Ethics" formulated by Philosopher Immanuel Kant can be used to analyze the ethical behavior of the parties involved in the Hyatt Regency collapse. Kantian ethics is centered on the concept that the actions of an individual are considered right or wrong based on a duty that he/she must perform, and not on the consequences or end product of the actions taken. Kant referred to this idea as the "Categorical Imperative", which can be summarized by the universality principle and the reciprocity
...afety should have inspected the building prior to issuing permits for further renovation, especially knowing this structure was going to be housing 124 residents. It seems that lack of knowledge from prior owners and lack of responsibility of city officials are responsible for this collapse and sadly, the loss of 9 brave men in the line of duty. The Boston Fire Department could have worked closer with the owner/ construction crew at the Hotel Vendome, and the deficiencies would have been found, and they would have known the instability they were walking into on June 17. At that point, firefighting operations would have more than likely been defensive. The firefighters did not conduct pre-incident planning which would have let them know they were going to face the construction barriers while attempting to lay hose, maneuver hose, and get the hose to a water source.
Deontology is an ethical theory concerned with duties and rights. The founder of deontological ethics was a German philosopher named Immanuel Kant. Kant’s deontological perspective implies people are sensitive to moral duties that require or prohibit certain behaviors, irrespective of the consequences (Tanner, Medin, & Iliev, 2008). The main focus of deontology is duty: deontology is derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. A duty is morally mandated action, for instance, the duty never to lie and always to keep your word. Based on Kant, even when individuals do not want to act on duty they are ethically obligated to do so (Rich, 2008).
Deontological ethics are “ethical theories that place special emphasis on the relationship between duty and the morality of human actions” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). This viewpoint focuses more on the action itself rather than the outcome. Per Kant’s Categorical Imperative one should “so act that you treat humanity in your own person and in the person of everyone else always at the same time as an end and never merely as means” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2018). An example of this is that killing is wrong, even if it is in self-defense. Many of the values and morals of the ELI Responsibilities Lens are based on the deontological
German philosopher Immanuel Kant popularized the philosophy of deontology, which is described as actions that are based on obligation rather than personal gain or happiness (Rich & Butts, 2014). While developing his theory, Kant deemed two qualities that are essential for an action to be deemed an ethical. First, he believed it was never acceptable to sacrifice freedom of others to achieve a desired goal. In other words, he believed in equal respect for all humans. Each human has a right for freedom and justice, and if an action takes away the freedom of another, it is no longer ethical or morally correct. Secondly, he held that good will is most important, and that what is good is not determined by the outcome of the situation but by the action made (Johnson, 2008). In short, he simply meant that the consequences of a situation do not matter, only the intention of an action. Kant also declared that for an act to be considered morally correct, the act must be driven by duty alone. By extension, there could be no other motivation such as lo...
Kant starts by explaining the three divisions of philosophy which are: physics, ethics, and logic. He clarifies that physics and ethics are a posteriori while logic is, a priori, but there is a third variable that interacts both which is also the foundation of morals. This is the categorical imperative or also known as the synthetic a priori. The categorical imperative or the moral law is the reason of individuals’ actions. Kant goes on to say “I should never except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Immanuel Kant, Page14 (line 407-408)). This indicates that an individual should not do anything that is not their own laws or rules that cannot become universal to all individuals. Throughout the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant defines what categorical imperative is, but also its four distinct articulations.
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex
For many years, the philosopher Immanuel Kant has argued for the existence of categorical imperatives. He defines categorical imperatives as rules that must be followed regardless of external circumstances, and that have content that is sufficient enough in and of itself to provide an agent with reason to act in a certain way. He is certain that moral rules fall under this label, and since his death, many of his followers have fought to support this claim.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Deontology refers to the judgment of the morality of an action based on the action’s adherence to a rule or rules. The first philosopher to define deontological principles was Immanuel Kant, who had founded critical philosophy. Kant held that nothing is good without the actual intent being good, and if one acts in accordance with the law, rather than what he thinks. He saw moral law as an unconditioned command and believed it should be established by human reason alone. Even now, with accordance to the law, people are bound to do things within the law, and following the law is considered ethical.
Deontology is when an action is considered morally good because of the action itself not the product of the action ("Deontological Ethics"). When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
It is called the second formulation of the categorical imperative. According to Kant, it suggests that people should treat others as the way they want to be treated. He states, “Act in such a way that treat humanity, [...] always at the same time as an end never simply means” (36).All human beings have intrinsic value in themselves. Therefore human beings should not be view each other as tools that provide benefits. Instead we should treat each other well without thinking about the benefits we may get and treat others as same human beings as ourselves who are inherently valuable in
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
The theory of the categorical imperative is intimately linked with this tradition. When Kant said: "Work in such a way so that the rule of your conduct may be a desirable law of coexistence," in essence expressed the golden rule and the principle of benevolence. In fact, each of us wants to be treated well, with respect and kindness. But Kant's formula also forces us to think about certain difficulties that its application provokes when it is concretized in human relations. The first setback is to try to impose the good without the consent of the favored; the second, in which the application of the golden rule may include evil and immoral motives.
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.
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.