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 First, Emotivism is “moral utterance are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes”. It doesn’t depend on the rightness or wrongness of the action, but feelings that emerge with circumstances. In addition, Emotivism is taking an action in unusual position on moral disagreement in attitude. On other words, it is possible …show more content…
Her children’s safety is her first priority, and as mother she would not hesitate to steal the supermarket and feed her children. In addition, the feelings she has towards her children is unconditional and that would drive her to safe them. Later on, Sarah’s excuse would be that she was hurt, and could not bier the emotions of them dying due to hunger and dehydration. Sarah’s action is not considered morally wrong or right because her emotions to her little children starving influenced her judgment of whether an action is right or …show more content…
Her worry about her children caused her to commit the crime of stealing. She couldn’t handle the sadness she feels every time her children cry for food. So stealing may seem just for the seek of her children, but in fact it is for her relief from the pain and sadness she feels. It is also ethically egoism, as she will share the food with her children, even after she feeds them. Therefore, feeding her children and making her self happy is more important than feeling of the shop owner’s
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical theory known as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. One such is, "Everyone should act in such a way to bring the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved." However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
After all, Kant’s theories rely on his depiction of humans as being rational beings that possess a will and are both influenced by emotions and inclinations. With reason, one is able to discover the principles provided by necessary, obligatory, and universal moral laws “a priori,” with which it is one’s duty to act out of reverence for. Yet, while reason determines the will, or the “power of determining oneself to action,” the inclinations may lead one to falter. Thus, it is when a person acts from their duty as a result of a good will, as my mother does when she donates to charity, that they perform moral acts. When one fails to have the proper action or motivation, like when my roommates stole silverware, one’s will has been influenced by another inclination besides duty. Consequently, all humans possess the same rational capacity and principles of law and duty, but it is simply the effect of inclinations and emotions on the will that creates
In After Virtue, author Alasdair MacIntyre critiques the state of modern morality and proposes an argument in favor of Aristotelian virtue ethics. For MacIntyre, he believes that a lack of community driven morality is the cause of moral decline in society, and that this decline began during the age of Enlightenment. He explains that the Enlightenment brought society into a state of disruption because the intense focus on individualism drove people to philosophical emotivism. Emotivism is defined by MacIntyre as being “the doctrine that all evaluative judgements and more specifically all moral judgements are nothing but expressions of preference, expressions of attitude or feeling, insofar as they are moral or evaluative in character” (11). Emotivism (like relativism) leads to a subjective form or morality, which MacIntyre’s thesis explains to be deeply flawed. MacIntyre favors virtue ethics because he believes it to bring about a more objective moral value system.
What would you do if you had the opportunity to take and raise an innocent little girl whose mother is a drug addict? That was the dilemma Doyle, a sheriff, faced in the move Gone Baby Gone. Two detectives, Patrick and Angie, are on the case of finding a missing little girl, and they finally stumble on her at Doyle’s house. Doyle had assisted with parts of the case, and had said nothing. He took the little girl, so that she would have a better life. In the end, Patrick turns Doyle over to the authorities, and the little girl is returned to her mother. Who was moral in this situation? Patrick or Doyle? Patrick is a perfect example of Kant’s standard for morality by his action from and in accord with duty. In this essay, Kant’s theory will be explained and then applied to the actions of both Patrick and Doyle.
Kantians believe that we should avoid treating others as mere means.(877) In other words we should not make false promises, physically force a person to do what we want, use threats, or take advantage of someone’s desperate situation and make unjust offers.(877-878) These are examples of treating people as mere means because these people will not have the opportunity to make a reasonable choice for themselves. Either because they don’t have the complete information, their wellbeing is on the line, or simply because there is no just offer on the table. We are also to treat others as an end in themselves(878), meaning that we have to respect their autonomy, and their freedom to make choices for themselves. But according to O’Neil it’s not enough to treat others as an end in themselves. In her duty of beneficence she argues that we cannot treat others as end in themselves if they have limited rationality or autonomy (878-879). She derives her idea from Kant’s idea of imperfect duty which aims to promote helping others to reach their potential.(). Therefor based on these principles it makes sense for us to help reduce world famine, because the people affected by this issues are very venerable, and their autonomy is undermined. The only way to ensure that they are treated as rational human beings is if we helped them. It’s important to
What are, and what are the differences between, judgments of perception and judgments of experience for Kant?
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
The professor first must identify a possible maxim of the situation, or the rule of thumb, for the first formulation. The professor’s maxim for this dilemma is to not report his plagiarism to school. If everyone followed that maxim, the professor could still do this. Regardless, it’s not desirable to live in a world where everyone followed said maxim. Then, analyze the maxim with the second formulation, which asks if a moral agent is used as a means in this decision. The professor is being used as a means by the student to avoid the consequences of plagiarism. As a result, this maxim is morally wrong according to Kant. However, there is another possible maxim the professor can follow, which is to tell the truth to the administration and report Charlie for plagiarism. One can conclude with the first formulation that this maxim can still be used if everyone did it and that a world where everyone followed this maxim is desirable. The second formulation also states that this maxim does not use anyone as a means to reach and end. Therefore, the latter maxim is a morally right action according to Kant. With the categorical imperative, the professor can conclude that the Kantian decision is to tell the truth and report the
Emotivism is a non-cognitivist metaethical theory where statements such as sentences where one expresses their thoughts or feelings, are not statements of truth or fact, but rather statements that reveal one’s feelings toward what the statement was. Ethical statements also express commands or expectations to those who hear them. Emotivism believes that words such as “good,” “bad,” “right,” “wrong,” “should,” and “ought” do not hold any value or genuineness, but are expressions of the speaker with the intention to influence the listener. Ayer a believer in emotivism explains that there are four classes or sections: 1. "Propositions which express definitions of ethical terms, or judgements about the legitimacy or possibility of certain definitions" 2.
In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.
In the late eighteenth century, with the publication of his theories on morality, Immanuel Kant revolutionized philosophy in a way that greatly impacted the decades of thinkers after him. The result of his influence led to perceptions and interpretations of his ideas reflected in the works of writers all around the world. Kant’s idealism stems from a claim that moral law, a set of innate rules within each individual, gives people the ability to reason, and it is through this that people attain truth. These innate rules exist in the form of maxims: statements that hold a general truth. Using this, Kant concluded with the idea of autonomy, in which all rational human wills are autonomous, each individual is bound by their own will and in an ideal society, people should operate only according to their reason. Influenced by Kant’s ideas, an american writer by the name of Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote his own call to individual morality through an essay on Self-Reliance. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson tells individuals to trust in their own judgments, act only according to their own wills, and to use their own judgment to determine what is right. Emerson’s Self-Reliance and Kant’s autonomy differ to the extent of where reason comes from. However, they agree on its purpose in dictating the individual’s judgment and actions. As a result, Autonomy and Self-Reliance have essentially the same message. Both Kant and Emerson agree that the individual should trust only their own reason, that they are bound only by their own free will, and that the actions of an individual should be governed by reason.
The fact that a person cannot withdraw their money from a bank because of moral restraints shows that there are some serious problems with the moral theory at work. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” seems at face value viable. Nevertheless, the lack of guidelines to determine which maxim should be used to describe an action causes problems with the consistency of the Universal Law formulation. Moreover, the abundance of false positives and false negatives suggests a deep problem with the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative that may not be fixable. Works Cited:.. 1) Feldman, Fred.