Kant's Deontological Theory

1299 Words6 Pages
Growing up us as humans are put in situations where we learn what is the moral thing to do and non- moral just by our upbringing like religion, culture, and our race. This is called Ethics, which are one of the major branches of philosophy that systematize, defend, and recommend concepts of right and wrong conduct. With that being said, there are different kind of ethical approaches different philosophers discovered/ believed in, which lay in the structure of consequentialist (the consequence of an action), Deontological ( duty, obligation, inclination, intention), and teleological ( striving to be a certain kind of person or fulfilling a kind of purpose ). In this paper I’m going to be defending Kant’s deontological theory which is a non-consequentialist…show more content…
Kant’s deontological moral theory is a non-consequentialist theory that is well-known for his view of human beings as having the unique capacity for rationality. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher that studied and wrote on philosophy, science, geography, beauty, war, and peace. He believed that every theory of ethics must recognize our autonomy, which is freedom to lead a self-directed life. Kant claimed that humans were inherently valuable for who they are and not for what value they can be for others. Deontological which means theory of duty was influenced by the Ancient Stoics, who stated that rather than stress over things we can’t control the key to morality and happiness is internal and a matter of our will and true intentions and we shouldn’t be accountable for things beyond our control. It is not a theory that focuses on the consequences of an action, but only did you do your moral duty as a person. For example, if you noticed a kid drowning and you decided to help this kid even though you know you can’t swim and the kid ended up drowning anyways and passing away, though the consequences of this situation is unpleasant because of the passing away of the kid, trying to save this…show more content…
It holds two versions which is individual ethical egoism, all persons should serve my self-interest and universal ethical egoism, all people should pursue their own interest exclusively. Where utilitarianism focuses on the well-being of all ethical egoism is all about “ME”. A big concern with ethical egoism is that they are looked upon as being selfish because they are always seeking their own self-interest no matter what. In order for an ethical egoist to promote their own interest as much as possible they would have to keep their ethical egoist a secret in order to benefit from someone else’s action. If not, than they may not be the beneficiary since others may not want to benefit someone who only purses their own interest. Dealing with an ethical egoist seems as though you are always using someone, whereas deontological requires you to treat people with respect and never use them as a mean. I truly believe that the reason things function in this world has to do a lot with all of us helping each other out and not wanting anything in return or trying to benefit from it. And with us doing that we do it because we feel like it’s our duty whether it’s helping a friend, family member, our children, or even a
Open Document