Immanuel Kant Ethics

When using the utilitarian approach, suffering is always involved even if it is to a small degree. When acting along Kant’s categorical imperative, it is simpler and fairer. When acting you would only have to ask “If someone else did this would it be okay for them too?” If the utilitarian approach was used the person would have to ask more questions regarding the situation. Using categorical imperative is fairer because suffering, even to a slight amount, wouldn’t be an option.

Ross’s moral theory can be thought of as a compromise between utilitarianism and Kantianiasm. Even though Ross applauds the idea of benevolence in utilitarianism and the importance of justice, he disapproved of maximizing happiness as the main duty and stating that the moral rules were absolute. The basis of Ross’s moral theory lies in the concept of prima facie; the “duty” performed based on the relationship between certain individuals. Ross means that in any situation the individual needs to decide which relationship is most important to them at that time when making decisions. His main argument consists of: 1.

Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains

So, firing my bazooka results to a maximum good to my society as opposed to failing to fire as Kant advises. Kant’s deontological ethics raises a lot of questions; According to him, a rule is a rule and should always apply to all people at all the times. Categorical imperative proves itself very challenging. Now that killing is bad, is it bad to kill an enemy at war? Is it bad to kill an enemy and save the lives of even many people in the future?

The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from

He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b).   This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control.   The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.

The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.

The distinction between right and wrong has been a matter of discussion for centuries, whether expressed through philosophical essays, social organisation or artistic creation. Deontological ethics is a philosophical theory which dissects acts into right and wrong on the basis of the adherence of an act to a specific rule. One of the many formulations of deontology is Kantianism, a view introduced by Immanuel Kant, which argues that the basis for morality are motives for one’s action rather than the consequences of it and searches a justification for one’s duty to behave in a certain manner. One of the critiques or counter positions of Kant’s ethics is Sartrean existentialism as it denies the possibility of an absolute moral system and focuses on the individual morality rather than social one and bases on one’s commitment to his chosen values. Yet drawing parallels between the two positions is far from impossible, despite Sartre’s strong opposition to Kantian moral theory.

Thesis Statement: Origin of Morality Outline A.Universal Ethics 1.Karl Barth, The Command of God 2.Thomas Aquinas, The Natural Law 3.Thomas Hobbes, Natural Law and Natural Right 4.Immanuel Kant, The Categorical Imperative B.Morality and Practical Reason 1.Practical Reason a.Practical Reason and Practical Reasons C.Evolution of Morality 1.What makes Moral Creatures Moral 2.Explaining the Nature of Moral Judgments F. Answering Questions 1. What is the origin of Morality: Religion or Philosophy? 2. What does religion say about morality?

Kant and the Lying Promise In “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals”, Kant explores the subject of duty and the binding force of morality. Kant explores the morality of among many cases, this paper being focused particularly on the case of the lying promise. To determine the morality of such action, Kant provides the Formula of Universal Law, which relies on a maxim passing four steps in order to be considered moral.

Kantian ethics departs significantly from utilitarianism’s attention to consequences; the focus instead is with principles—a deontological strategy. Kant argued that individuals should be taken care of not simply as a way to one’s own ends but as ends with themselves (Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007). This emphasis on “respect for persons” stems from the view that individuals should be thought to be independent agents, with interests of the own and the judgment to do something on them. In other words, they should always be accorded the freedom to do something autonomously. Kant gave fantastic importance to reasons for acting—making the proper decisions for the proper reasons being the final goal.

Hyejin Jang Professor Writing DED 8 April 2016. 4. 7. Kant’s ethics differs from utilitarian ethics both in its scope and in the precision with which it guides action. In The Categorical Imperative, Kant emphasizes that human autonomy is the essence of morality.

The point is that moral approvals and disapprovals done by our moral sense are specific in nature and only operate when there is an action that can be appropriately judged of by our moral sense. Reasoning and information can change the evaluation of the moral sense, but no amount of reasoning can or does precede the moral sense in regard to its approval of what is for the public good. The moral sense approves of the good for others. This concern for others by the moral sense is what is natural to humankind, Hutcheson contended. Reason gives content to the moral sense, informing it of what is good for others and the public good

Considered within morality, conscience lacks objective content, around which the determination of the truth or falsity of its believes could revolve. ‘Conscience is therefore subject to judgment as to its truth or falsity, and its appeal solely to itself is directly opposed to what it seeks to be – that is, the rule for a rational and universal mode of action which is valid in and for itself.’ Conscience is ready to mistake its subjective certainty – its being strongly convinced and hasting to conclude the truthfulness of its convictions – with objective certainty, where the certainty of the rightness of a principle is established on the basis of its correctness. Failure to distinguish where distinctions are due, the inflated subjectivity of moral reflection, reduces the morality of conscience to individual caprice, contingency of the particular will. Conscience is merely subjectivity’s absolute inward certainty of itself; that is: a certainty which amounts to nothing more than a pretence and fancy; a certainty which is no more than the self’s certainty of the self, with no bearing on actuality.