The value of the individual on Kant’s theory, Utilitarianism and Egoism are all very different, yet need each other in so many ways to function in our daily lives. Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory according to these theories, the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty. Utilitarianism is, thus, a teleological theory, it takes the view that what makes an action good or bad, right or wrong, is its outcome or consequence. Lastly, Egoism is the thesis that we are always deep down motivated by what we perceive to be in our own self-interest. In this essay I will be analyzing these three topics as well as comparing and contrasting each topic. Kant’s theory is not deontological in the sense of repudiating the line of questioning that quite naturally leads from wondering what I ought to do, to wondering about what is good or worthwhile, and from …show more content…
Egoism states the egoism, holds that moral conduct ought to be judged through self-interest. Egoism states that the good consequences for the individual agent outweigh the consequences placed upon others. In egoism, actions could be considered ethical for the individual if the one taking the action is benefited, while any benefit or detriment to the welfare of others is a side effect and not as important as the consequences for the individual. Kant’s moral theory is based on his idea that doing the right thing must be motivated by reason and not the emotions. This is because, according to Kant, if we want morality, or an ethical system to apply to everyone equally it has to be based on reason, since it is reason that any rational being can appeal to, and it is only reason that does apply universally. Emotions, or subjective preferences, desires, needs, wants are subjective they depend on the way an individual feels, and so cannot apply
Kantian Deontology is a theory of ethics written by Immanuel Kant. He argues that to be acting in a morally correct way, one must be acting from duty. He also argues that it isn’t the outcomes of the action that makes the actions right or wrong, rather it is the reason that the person had carried out the action. These two arguments rely on the categorical imperative. The first is the Formula of Universal Law (FUL). Kant describes it as, “I ought never to act in such a way that I couldn’t also will that the maxim on which I act should be a universal law” (Kant). In another words, if you universalize a maxim (a principle of intention), i...
Ethical egoism is arbitrary and puts ourselves above everybody else for no apparent reason. Ethical egoism splits everybody into two groups, ourselves and everyone else, and says that we are the morally superior. This brings up the question, why are we, ourselves, morally superior to everyone else? Failing to answer this question, means that the ethical egoist has no rational reason to choose ourselves over anybody else. So, with similar rational, it could just have been that everyone else is morally superior to ourselves. The ethical egoist seems to be completely arbitrary in this decision. This theory doesn’t even know why it is putting us, ourselves, above everybody else. One can compare this to a racist who says white people are more superior to blacks (Rachels). Several decades ago they would rationally argue that blacks are intellectually inferior and a threat to the world peace but today there is substantial amount of evidence to refute these claims. Now the racist has no reasons for the racial discriminations and white people and black people are equal, meaning that being racially against black people is arbitrary and has no rational reasoning. Indeed, ethical egoism is just as arbitrary as racism is, but once again, utilitarianism
Also, another critique is that people would be acting out of moral duty instead of inclination, which is bad. Would you want somebody to do something because they must or because they want to? For example, if you were very sick and your friends came to visit you and they told you they only came because it was their “duty”. That would not feel too good. If we were to follow Kant’s ethics of duty, us people would seem more inhuman since we would only obey absolute rules for duty instead of
In other words, ethical egoism states that there are objective moral facts and an action is morally good if and only if it promotes my personal happiness and it is morally wrong if and only if that action hinders my personal happiness. Apart from Ethical Egoism there is another topic to be known clearly, it is called Psychological Egoism. Psychological Egoism It is the claim that each person, in fact, pursues his/her own happiness.
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
What is utilitarianism? Through philosophy, John Stuart Mill aims to answer this question. He asserts that one’s actions must be right if the greatest number of individuals are pleased with the greatest good. The theory of utilitarianism is straightforward. One must always chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good. In any instance, one must chose the action that will promote the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle allows one to decipher any action that may be considered right or wrong. On the contrary, Immanuel Kant and Kwame Appiah challenge the method of utilitarianism as a means to determine which rights countries should enforce. Kant asserts that human rights are individual and universal, whereas Appiah focuses on cosmopolitanism.
Natural disaster causes damage for lives and their homes. Many families face a danger of lack of water and food, and transportation. Sarah and her children were struggling to survive from that disaster, and the only store is closed to prevent robbers from the community. Therefore, Sarah can perform an action that can be applied and relate to three ethical theories, Emotivism, Egoism, and Kant’s theory
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...
Ethical egoism is the normative view that each individual should seek out their own self-interest (Robbins). One ought to act and do what is in one’s own maximum interest, benefit, or advantage; and, the action must be moralistic for it to produce happiness. According to this theory morality is based on everyone promoting their self-interest or selfish motives. In the article “Ethical Egoism” by Jan Narveson. Narveson quotes Bishop Joseph Butler’s theory of rational behavior as “the rational agent acts so as to maximize the realization of one’s interest.” Meaning that one will only act if they are carrying out an action with the intention to achieve their interest to its full extent.
Critiques of Kantian moralist theory such as Williams believe that Kant’s moral theory is characterized by Impartiality and unresponsiveness to any picky associations to picky person. Abstraction from specific characteristics of an agent is what is believed by the critiques as to be a qualification for a universal moral principle that can apply to similar
Psychological egoism, a descriptive claim about human nature, states that humans by nature are motivated only by self-interest. To act in one's self-interest is to act mainly for one's own good and loving what is one's own (i.e. ego, body, family, house, belongings in general). It means to give one's own interests higher priority then others'. "It (psychological egoism) claims that we cannot do other than act from self-interest motivation, so that altruism-the theory that we can and should sometimes act in favor of others' interests-is simply invalid because it's impossible" (Pojman 85). According to psychological egoists, any act no matter how altruistic it might seem, is actually motivated by some selfish desire of the agent (i.e., desire for reward, avoidance of guilt, personal happiness).
Overall, I think that Kant’s first proposition to morality is a good one, it makes sense that our actions should have moral worth because we do them because they are in accordance to duty and we feel we have a duty to even if they go against our desires. I believe the sympathetic person’s actions do not have a moral worth since they do kind things from the natural qualities that they possess of kindness and compassion. People should be encouraged to help their fellow citizens and have such qualities, but doing so does not have moral worth unless it is from the motive of duty, if not it is just in accordance with duty.
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by the maxim of doing the right thing because it is right thing to do. The moral worth of an action is determined by whether or not it was acted upon out of respect for the moral law, or the Categorical Imperative. Imperatives in general imply something we ought to do however there is a distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives are obligatory so long as we desire X. 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 Moral, the Universal Law formulation, Humanity or End in Itself formulation, and Kingdom of Ends formulation. In this essay, the viablity 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.