This theory judges the morality of an action based on the actions adherence to a set of rules. It is explained as an action is morally right if it is required by duty, and should not conflict with any other action required by another duty. By doing our duty we do what is valuable, this theory focuses on the structure of moral judgment. One should act regardless of your own aims or self-interest. Kant formalism is based on deontology and are united and their opposition to purely oppose the consequentiality moral thinking; some even hold that a morally wrong may have entirely good consequences, and a morally right on entirely bad consequences (Frankena, 1973.
Harrison claims that these people are, “following Utilitarianism instead, which follows consequentialism”. It is the contrast to the Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism has its starting point with the result. They consider something as morally good if a good result comes out of it, but if there is a bad consequence, then they consider it morally wrong. This places more development in the ends than it does the means.
So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly. Deontology can be a quite appealing theory when not taken so literally. Clearly, one has morals they consider more important than others. If the theory is adjust for this idea, the notion of moral dilemmas is eliminated and one would be allowed to lie if it saved lives. Deontology when looked at loosely is simply a moral theory that says we have morals and we need to consider them when making decisions.
To thoroughly comprehend Kant’s moral philosophy, we must first understand two key elements by which it stands: good will and the categorical imperative. Primordially, Kant believes in good will. Some value happiness, justice or even authority; Kant, on the other hand, values our good will above anything else. Good will, he contends, is our commitment to do our duty for its own sake (Shafer-Landau, pg. 70).
Morality that is case-by-case or situational is a morality that is based off of the circumstances and moral facts of each individual situation rather than the same considerations for similar actions. Moral particularism supports my claim because it argues that the import of any consideration is context dependent, that exceptions can be found to any suggested principles, and that moral wisdom consists in the ability to include them under codified rules (Little, Margaret). When making a decision, a generalist is concerned with the good and bad that will come from an outcome. The generalist strives to always maximize happiness or goodness (Hursthouse, Rosalind). In order to maximize happiness, the generalist takes a situation and uses the same considerations for deciding whether or not one should perform an action case by case based on the goodness gained from the action.
Consequentialism is a moral theory which is founded on the premise that an action is morally right if the outcomes of such actions maximize the good and minimize the bad. In contrast, Non-consequentialism is derived from the premise that some actions are inherently right or wrong. As these theories can derive either identical or varied conclusions in morally ambiguous situations, the conclusions in themselves, while important, can not be considered evidence for the theory’s value. Hence, as we can only judge a theories value by its premise, I will argue that consequentialism is derived from a sound premise, while non-consequentialism is based on an unfounded assertion. Before we consider specific situations, it is important to understand fully the stance of non-consequentialism and consequentialism.
I will begin to illustrate what Waldron means by such a right. Before we even look at the meaning of “a right to do wrong”, Waldron clarifies that he is looking at “wrongs” from a moral view not a legal view. “A right to do wrong” means that an action is morally wrong but it is an action that an individual has the moral right to do. It is suggested that an individual should not act in an immoral way but has the choice to do so. Waldron wishes to answer the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do wrong.
Justice and Honesty: Rules in Utilitarianism Reconsidered Utilitarianism, with the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle being its core, is a consequentialist theory which attaches the greatest importance to the consequences of each action. While acting justly and honestly may not always bring the best consequences, some criticize its conflicts between traditional moral rules or virtues, such as justice and honesty. To answer the challenge, it is essential to distinguishing two kinds of utilitarianism, one being act-utilitarianism and the other being rule-utilitarianism. In order to focus on the question about the relationship between the two moral rules and utilitarianism, I am not going to compare which kind of utilitarianism is more convincing. Rather, I argue that both types of utilitarianism could avoid the conflicts mentioned before, and could account for the significance of justice and honesty.
(Foot 1972: 311). Morality and its standards are often assumed to be 'intrinsically' motivating, and this is how they regulate society's behaviour. (Prinz in Batson 2011:41). Yet Batson suggests rather than intrinsically motivating, we conform to the principles to avoid social and self-rewards, where we are viewed as morally good. Morality for Kant is determined by whether certain moral actions could be turned into a universal maxim.
The weakness of the reply lies in confirming that the doctrine allows unjust actions, the point against which the objection was raised. However, it shows that even though Utilitarianism allows injustice, it is for a legitimate purpose of minimizing evil. Utilitarians hold that human actions should yield maximum benefit possible. According to the objection to the doctrine, maximum benefit is achieved at the expense of justness. The objection is refuted by stating that Utilitarianism promotes greater happiness, not unjust actions.