Tiffany Beye 15 April 2014 Mark Timmons Moral Theory Assignment The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example. The Jim and the Indians example illustrates a situation in which a man must choose whether to violate his moral code in order to save innocent lives. In this scenario, Jim is a visitor in an area in South American were twenty innocent Indians have been lined up and are about to be killed for showing resistance against their government. The man in charge of killing these Indians has offered Jim a deal: Jim can kill one of the Indians himself and the man will let all of the rest go. However, if Jim does not accept the deal, the execution of all twenty Indians will be carried out as planned. It is morally wrong to murder but is it permissible in this case if it means saving nineteen innocent lives? This scenario brings about the question if there are exceptions to moral code, or if certain actions are wrong in all circumstances. To understand rule consequentialism, let me first explain basic consequentialism. Simply put, consequentialism asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of... ... middle of paper ... ...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.
Although, Jim may not like killing anyone; the other Indians would be very appreciative if he did kill just one of them. The other nineteen Indians would be safe, and only one life is lost as opposed to nineteen. This type of outlook is Utilitarianism; Jim could justify his actions, because it is for the greater good of society. By intervening Jim causes one death instead of twenty deaths, which would justify the means of killing. Not killing someone to save a mass of people is more wrong than just killing one person because of the damage that is caused. More people survive and are happy when one Indian is killed; therefore, Jim could justly kill one Indian.
(Beginning unfinished) In this paper, I will introduce two arguments against Classical Utilitarianism and explain why they are compelling and tenable objections. I will then anticipate how a non-utilitarian Consequentialist might try to avoid these problems. In the last section, I will use the example of poverty relief to explain why Kantian Ethics immunes from the harsh criticisms faced by Utilitarian.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
Kant opens up Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by saying, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will,” and it is with this sentence that he introduces his idea of non-consequentialism (p. 151). Non-consequentialism can be described as a philosophical theory that states that the morality of our behaviour does not depend on the consequences of our actions, but instead depends on the intent with which we perform these actions. With this piece of writing, Kant attempts to delve deeper into the principles of human morality, discover what makes an action right or wrong, and determine the correct motives for performing any action.
With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there
ABSTRACT: This treatise is a contribution towards the understanding of why humankind cannot agree on the foundation of morality and why moral pluralism is the logical constitution of moral reality. The synergistic-reflective-equilibrium model is the model that will describe how persons can make moral decisions as pluralistic agents. If this model is correct, then it will not be a new discovery, rather, it will be a new description of how pluralistic agents do in fact make moral decisions. This synergistic-reflective-equilibrium description should then be useful not only in giving a fuller understanding of how moral decisions ought to be made, but also how moral philosophy can be united into a pluralistic collective whole. The first part of this paper defines the synergistic-reflective-equilibrium mode. It briefly explains how it is a combination of both the theory model of moral decision-making and the intuition model of moral decision-making. The second part of this paper defines mid-level principles and explains how they are a natural development of the synergistic-reflective-equilibrium method. It will then be shown that both Mill and Kant used this method in their own moral theories. Lastly, it will be shown how "weighing and balancing" and "specification" are integral components in this model and were also practiced by Mill and Kant in their moral systems.
Immanuel Kant adheres to Deontological ethics. His theory offers a view of morality based on the principle of good will and duty. According to him, people can perform good actions solely by good intentions without any considerations to consequences. In addition, one must follow the laws and the categorical imperative in order to act in accordance with and from duty. Several other philosophers such as Hannah Arendt discuss Kant’s moral philosophy. In her case study: “The Accused and Duties of a Law-Abiding Citizen”, Arendt examines how Adolf Eichmann’s actions conformed to Kant’s moral precepts but also how they ran of afoul to his conception of duty. In contrast, John Stuart Mill adopts a teleological view of moral philosophy. He exposes his view of consequentialism and utilitarianism to argue that an action is morally right only to the extent that it maximizes the aggregate happiness of all parties involved regardless of the motive. In the present paper, I will expose Kant’s moral precepts and the importance of duty in his Deontological principles. Then, I will evaluate Arendt’s report on Adolf Eichmann to analyze the ways in which his actions were in accordance to or against Kant’s moral philosophy. I will conclude my discussion with an evaluation of Mill’s approach to morality in order to examine the differences between his teleological philosophy and Kant’s ethical principles.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results. A consequentialist will assess both the positive and negative effects of an action before taking it. According to this theory, the best result can be obtained by a reasonable judgement of a person. Utilitarianism is another way of representing consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a theory that suggests that it is morally right when an action brings positive consequences not just to one person, or one community, in that
In this paper, I will argue that Kant provides us with a plausible account of morality. To demonstrate that, I will initially offer a main criticism of Kantian moral theory, through explaining Bernard Williams’ charge against it. I will look at his indulgent of the Kantian theory, and then clarify whether I find it objectionable. The second part, I will try to defend Kant’s theory.
In normative ethics, a multitude of theories constitute the understanding of morality in human action. This diverse spectrum of theories includes consequentialism, more specifically, utilitarianism, which is a consequence-based theory that was first developed by Jeremy Bentham and later broadened by John Stuart Mill, to Kantianism, or deontology, a duty-based theory developed by Immanuel Kant. The two ethical theories express a very obvious polarity in their moral discourses, but they also draw familiar parallels as they are both founded on scientific human investigation. This investigation shares some interactive ideas: to apply certain principles universally, to prioritize individual freedom
According to Immanuel Kant the driving force behind our actions should be dictated by what is inherently good as sole consideration and not be based upon the effects of what such actions may produce such as the case in the consequentialist theory of cause. In this essay Kant’s ethical non-consequentialist theory will be briefly investigated and a comparison drawn between the two different theories in order to establish merit in employment thereof in practice.
In summary, Kant believed that the even if our actions are wrong or right the consequences do not matter provided the actions fulfill our duties and the CI is a determinant of our social du...
We analyzed several cases of different forms to include, a case with a positive and negative outcome, a case with all negative outcomes, and a case where all the participants were of poor character; to show practical examples of these two theories. We also looked at the outcomes from those cases to determine which system produces the better outcomes and why. After studying all of these findings we have determined that when it comes to a better moral theory, between virtue ethics and consequentialism, consequentialism is the better system for consistently making moral decisions, especially in its utilitarian
In society, morality is defined as the beliefs and ideas of what is right or wrong behaviour. (Can you cite a dictionary?) The teachings of morality also known as moral education is heavily dependent on individuals that have a major impact on one`s life. The teachings usually start from a young age through parents, caregivers and educators in society. Due to their influence on young children`s lives it is their responsibility to make certain that young children will learn to make logical decisions that would contribute in a positive way in society. An ethical theory that would best describe people that influence young children would be Kantian`s ethics. His ethical theory elucidates that morality is when we act based on duty for duty`s sake not for self-interest. For this reason in order to respect the law, a sense of duty to one`s actions is necessary (Kant, 287). Based on this analysis, young children would need Kant`s outlook on morality in order to be sufficient in society. In this paper, I will argue that we as moral agents have a sense of duty to educate young children on how they should act by allowing them to reason and make rational decisions in society. In order to do this, educators which includes parents and caregivers, must teach young children the true purpose of good will based on Kantian ethics. Secondly, educators must instruct young children on how to implement policies, which Kant refers to as maxims, which are universal (Kant, 287). This concept is based on Kant`s principle of universal law. Lastly, based on Kant`s principle of humanity, children would be able to acknowledge that treating others as ends is preferred instead of as mere means. Both principles are a part of what Kant would call the Categorical im...
A system of rules organized an association of people to establish a society. These rules enhance the lives of people to get organized and progress. One of the rules is the rule of conduct which ought the people to do or ought not to do depends on the situation. These rules constitute a phenomenon of Morality. The philosophical study of morality is an ethics which are rational and systematic analysis of conduct that can be a source of benefit or harm to other people. The predominant focus of an ethics is based on the voluntary and moral choices of the people. In the past era, philosopher proposed many ethical theories. The ethical theory which fails to enable the user to make persuasive arguments in front of the diverse audience is a non-working