Morality and Law

2029 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarianism vs consequentialism

It is often understood that of the strengths of the moral theory of deontology is that it supports the notion of individuals having rights. Further looking at this idea of individuals having rights through the specific moral theory of Deontology; we also see that Kantian deontology supports the notion of individuals having rights. If we look at one of the many maxims that has been listed by Immanuel Kant, we see that one of his maxims states that we should never use the someone or something as a means to a further end but appreciate them as the end itself.

This idea of the maxim provides a reply to the charge against consequentialism (utilitarianism) which only cares and prioritizes the general good over and above everything/everyone and this may lead to the violation of the rights for individuals. Deontologists view on individuals having rights goes on to say that it is never justifiable to override the rights of anyone even if by losing the the rights for individuals, it will lead to the good for the majority. Through the moral theory of deontology, looking it at through the lenses of Immanuel Kant, we see that the path of individuals having rights is via the notion of treating people with respect, dignity and not as a mean to a further end. Through this moral theory we see that individuals are autonomous and we can choose how to act and this aspect makes morality possible which further augments to the idea of individuals having rights.

This idea of individuals having rights through the moral theory of Deontology; through the views of Immanuel Kant is of vital importance both legally and morally. Looking at this from a legal perspective we see that through the European Convention of Human Rights, internationally the need ...

... middle of paper ...

...ing a duty towards other can be further developed, if we analyze this idea we can see that this idea mentioned runs along with the moral theory of Deontology, when we think of having a duty towards others; we immediately think of individual acts being carried out and this can therefore be deemed moral or immoral by a deontologist or anyone else who looks at each and every act to determine the morality of an act. As a supporter of the theory of deontology, we can easily find out if the act is moral or immoral and by doing this we can draw a distinct line which shows that the moral theory of Deontology supports the idea of individuals have rights. Individuals also may have the ability to bestow rights over others if they have the power to do so, through this thought we can see that there is a link between the idea of duty or obligation and individuals having rights.

Show More
Related

  • Ethics in Nursing

    1924 Words  | 4 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Deontological Moral Theory

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning. One objection to deontological moral theory is that the theory yields only absolutes and cannot always justify its standpoints.

    Read More

  • Deontology and Utilitarianism: Ethical Theories for Nurses

    1121 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Locke and the Legitimacy of the State: Right vs. Good

    704 Words  | 2 Pages

    Consequently, since all human beings have certain moral rights to health, liberty, and possessions; they also have the right to enforce the protection of those rights by way of punishing violators. And it is in this maintaining of ones own rights that it is necessary for man to initially come together and form a social contract. By forming a social contract they are agreeing to sustain from living purely in a state of nature. According to Locke, living in such a state of nature is ‘inconvienent’, for there is no common ground by which to appropriately judge an individual who infringes upon another person natural rights (Christman 43). Therefore, one can not ‘effectively enjoy’ their own rights until they join under a ‘common political authority’ (44).

    Read More

  • Morality And Morality

    3173 Words  | 7 Pages

    In every civilized society you will always find many varying forms of morality and values, especially in the United States of America. In Societies such as these you find a mosaic of differing religions, cultures, political alignments, and socio economic backgrounds which suggests that morality and values are no different. In Friedrich Nietzsche’s book, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche discusses morality and the two categories that you will find at the very basis of all varieties of morality. One category of morality focuses on the “Higher Man” and his superiority to all those under him and his caste. The second system is derived from those of a lower caste that may be used by those in higher castes to further themselves and society. These categories as described by Nietzsche are known as Master Morality and Slave Morality. In this modern time in our culture, morality is becoming a more polarizing topic than ever before. Morality is often times held synonymous with religious practice and faith, although morality is an important part of religion and faith, everyone has some variation of morality no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof. Friedrich Nietzsche’s theories on morality, Master and Slave Morality, describe to categories of morality which can be found at the very basis of most variations of morality. Master and Slave morality differ completely from each other it is not uncommon to find blends of both categories from one person to another. I believe the Master Morality and Slave Morality theories explain not only religious affiliations but also political alignments and stances on certain social issues in American society. By studying the origins and meanings of Nietzsche’s theories, comparing these theories to c...

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.

    Read More

  • Nozick's Entitlement Theory Essay

    1929 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this paper, I will examine Nozick’s ‘whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just’ formula. By this formula, Nozick protects individuals’ absolute property rights. To examine its validity, first, I will show that Nozick’s entitlement theory relies on Kantian principle, which demands treating everyone as persons having individual rights with dignity. However, it will be clear that Kantian theory does not necessarily yield the concept of absolute property rights. Second, I will explain the principle of self-ownership, which will clarify that persons have rights over their bodies and powers. I will find the principle of self-ownership is compatible with Kantian principle. Third, I will examine Nozick’s proviso, which guides legitimate initial acquisition. However, finally, I will show that the appropriation that passes Nozick’s proviso violates the idea of respecting people as persons with dignity. In other words, Nozick’s proviso is inconsistent with Kantian principle. Therefore, Nozick’s formula fails.

    Read More

  • Human Rights By John Tasioulas

    1991 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Tasioulas introduces the idea that human rights are explained by the morals that humans possess through understanding of human dignity. He explains that are three connections that human dignity has to human rights. The first connection presented is that human dignity and rights are rarely distinguished between due to having virtually the same standards in regards to them. The second that dignity is a starting point in moral grounds that human rights build off of. And last, that the idea that human rights are justified by dignity, saying dignity is the ideal basis for human rights. Tasioulas chooses to focus on the last point, that it is our morals that bring about human rights and that our morals come from humans having dignity. The key thing being that human dignity is something that all possess by simply being human beings there is no merit in achievement or by what legislation or social position can give us.

    Read More

  • Deontology

    808 Words  | 2 Pages

    Deontology is derived from the Greek word meaning duty. An action is considered morally right when it is a part of a person’s duties or requirements. As long as a person is following the duties, they are considered to be performing morally. Typically, this list of duties or rules are created by God in a deontological system. By acting with morals a person is obeying God’s list of duties. Christopher Bennet writes that, “Deontology, such as Kant’s ethics, there are certain types of act, such as rape, murder, theft and assault that are always wrong” (Bennet, 2010, p. 33). For example, if it is morally wrong to kill, killing is then always wrong, even if that means allowing a person to suffer. Kant believes that a person will come to know what is right and wrong by rational thought. Deontology is the most common moral theory that is widely practiced in the world, especially within healthcare. The negative side of a deontological system is that it doesn’t allow resolution between two contradictory moral duties. Looking at the example above, it is morally wrong to kill, but it is also a moral duty to not allow someone to suffer.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: Ethics and Morality

    2484 Words  | 5 Pages

    Whether put simply or scrutinized, morality cannot be defined simply by looking at it from one or two perspectives. One must acknowledge the fact that there are several different factors that affect judgment between “right” and “wrong”. Only after taking into account everything that could possibly change the definition of righteousness can one begin to define morality. Harriet Baber, a professor at San Diego State University, defines morality as “the system through which we determine right and wrong conduct”. Baber refers to morality as a process or method when she calls it a “system”. In saying “we” she then means to say that this concept does not only apply to her but also to everyone else. Through morality, according to her, one can look at an action, idea, or situation and determine its righteousness and its consequences.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Legal Moralism

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Brink says that then we can clear Mill of the charge of inconsistency about legal moralism. Since, Mill seems pretty consistent with his rejection towards legal moralism. This seems to bring up the debate between Mill and Stephen. Stephen is the author of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity: in which he talks about his defense of the uses of criminal law to promote virtue and curb vice. Mill is the one who provokes Stephen’s criticism, rendering that Mill is an anti-moralist. A century later, Lord Devlin revived Mill and Stephen’s arguments in which Devlin’s defense of legal regulation of homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography, and liberal criticisms. It can be tempting to reject legal moralism of Stephen and Devlin because of Mill’s anti-moralism, but temptation can be resisted.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Imperative

    1532 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Are Human Rights Universal?

    1599 Words  | 4 Pages

    There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion. A general definition of human rights is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’

    Read More

  • Law In Society

    1347 Words  | 3 Pages

    Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it

    Read More

  • Law And Morality Essay

    1124 Words  | 3 Pages

    Should the aim of law be primarily focused on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals aimed at the good of the society? The question of law and morality is difficult mainly because it needs to be addressed with current social conditions that exist, the morals and values that the particular society has. In general, the laws in any society should not only be focused on regulations, but it should also protect individual’s liberty. Devlin debate was based on deciding whether law should enforce morality. He debated about what the law ought to be and whether morality should be enforced by law to form a good society. Furthermore, John Stewart Mill did not write specifically on law and morality. His argument constituted mainly on the anti-enforcers side of law and morality because he believed in individual liberty. John Stuart Mill's assertion that the only justification for limiting one person's liberty is to prevent harm to another

    Read More

More about Morality and Law

Open Document