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.
Certainly, Socrates’ arguments about the limitations of godly knowledge of the “moral good” devolve the idea of divine command as a cause of piety, but more importantly, it defines the philosophical evaluation of piety as a way to educate Euthyphro to analyze his pre-assumed beliefs with greater conviction. In this dialogue, the issue of the “moral good” becomes a more complex relationship between Euthyphro’s religious and moral perception of philosophy: “I told you a short while ago, Socrates, that it is a considerable task to acquire any precise knowledge of these things” (177). This new perspective defines the effectiveness of Socrates’ argument to dispel the overly confident assumption that the gods approve of piety, since piety has its own unique qualities that need to be defined. This moral and religious relationship is ambiguous because Socrates has opened the possibility of Euthyphro coming to his own conclusions about the gods and the “moral good”, which should be presumed by religious doctrines or in the divine command of the
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kempsmith. New York: The Humanities P, 1950.
In many of the works we have read this year, there have been many critiques to the Chinese Communist ideals. These works solely critique the ideals of communism, and promote change in the way that it is implemented in life. The movie “Blue Kite,” tries to show what life was like under the communist government in China. By showing the people the true agony and suffering during the regime, they hoped to change the ideas of many people about communism. While the majority of scholars and students believe that “Blue Kite” is solely a critique of communistic ideals in China, I believe that it is a promotion of more progressive and democratic ideas shown through the Chinese government emphasis on little to no family life, and the visual and metaphorical
Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative (CI) was the test for morally permissible actions. The CI states: I must act in such a way that I can will that my maxim should become a universal law. Maxims which fail to pass the CI do so because they lead to a contradiction or impossibility. Kant believes this imperative stems from the rationality of the will itself, and thus it is necessary regardless of the particular ends of an individual; the CI is an innate constituent of being a rational individual. As a result, failure ...
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
Each person's happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an unfree act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you address the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and actions. You decide how you feel about what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a belief that the reason is the final authority for morality.
During the dialogue, Euthyphro defines, “Piety means prosecuting the unjust individual who has committed murder or sacrilege, or any other such crime, as I am doing now, whether he is your father or mother or whoever he is.” Given this Euthyphro overarching principles can be summarized as divine law requires to prosecute the offender no matter who she or he is. Also, the ideology should be what befits humans as well. Socrates is fine with how Euthyphro accounts the factual evidence of his father’s misguided acts. What Socrates takes problem is how Euthyphro uses greek mythology to highlight that taking action against your parents is the correct direction of action. Due to the fact that mythology isn’t confirmed to be true in any sense, socrates feels as though this is extremely inappropriate. Euthyphro actions should be based on divine law with results in him being impious. Socrates ultimate principles can be summarized as respect for parents should be the ultimate law combined with whatever does not befit the gods shouldn’t befit everyone else. Insert another
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...
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.
The Kant holds deontological views. In his view, what is right is more important than the level of goodness
The. Print. The. O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics.
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
1) Feldman, Fred. ‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198.