Analysis Of Stanley Hoffman 's Duties Beyond Borders : On The Limits And Possibilities Of Ethical International Relations Essay

Utilitarian’s try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant, disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

Did the introduction section appropriate set the stage for the research performed in the paper?

Many moral theories have been proposed to understanding our obligations and responding to the perceived injustices present in the world such as world hunger and world poverty, two of the most prominent of these theories are utilitarianism, and human rights. In her essay ‘Rights, Obligations, and World Hunger’, Onora O’Neill critically examines these theories and highlights their inadequacy towards understanding our obligations towards alleviating world poverty, then goes on to propose a third alternative theory to the aforementioned theories, which she believes is better suited. The theory she proposes is that of the Kantian ethical theory developed by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. This theory is indeed the best suited to understanding our obligations to alleviating world poverty. Before expounding on the Kantian theory that O’Neill proposes, and why it is the optimal approach for understanding our obligations to those suffering from world poverty, I will very briefly summarise the other two moral theories, and explain why O’Neill is correct in her assessment that they are inadequate to dealing with the problem at hand.

An increasing number of people believe that we have responsibilities towards future generations in regards to preserving the planet. In this paper, I will present Heilbroner 's arguments for posterity, in relation to how we treat our environment. In addition, I will compare two ethical theories, Kant 's Categorical Imperative to Mill 's theory of Utilitarianism. I will then argue as to why Utilitarianism is more plausible in respect to Heilbroner 's environmental view on posterity. Furthermore, I will point out why Kantian theory does not at all support the idea of environmental preservation for future

Before we get to the premises of my argument, I would like to distinguish the difference between virtue ethics, Kantian deontology and utilitarianism. Unlike virtue ethics, Kantian and utilitarianism tell us what our duty is to our fellow human beings. In utilitarianism the goal is to increase happiness for the greatest number of people. This often requires self-sacrifice and it can be quite demanding to figure out what decision will have the best consequence and the most happiness. Kantian ethics, on the other hand tells us to do what would be universally acceptable. Meaning that something is morally right if every single person in the planet is allowed to do the

There are several ethical theories used in environmental issues. Two such theories are utilitarianism and the natural-law theory. Each of these theories have, in turn, sub-theories which include hedonistic utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, teleological natural law, and divine natural law theories. Utilitarianism is a pragmatic theory which emphasizes the amount of the resultant. It wants the best result for the most people or to produce the largest amount of “good”.

From the second standpoint, the perspective of Kant’s ethical theory, the mining activity of El Cerrejón in Colombia is questionable. Based on Kant´construction of the moral law (Kant, (1785)[2012]), the principles of universalism, humanity and autonomy should be applied in ethical dilemmas which means that it is the people´s moral duty to act according to the universal law, give freedom and autonomy to other people´s along with respecting their motives and interests equally.

All of the three approaches to environmental ethics use Kant's principle to various extents. The differences between them lie in their individual definitions of moral categories. It's like looking at the same slide under three different powers on a microscope. Each approach relies on Kant's principle to protect the interest of that which they deem worthy.

Has anyone of us witnessed a team discussing an ethical decision involving a specific case study with many conflicting versions of the story? It is interesting to follow. Some of the debate participants feel so confident about being "right" that they will persist until they win the hearts of their opponents. Some participants will just waffle and attempt to analyze the situation from variant dimensions (Lukas 72). Analyzing a specific Case Study relating to terms of confidentiality, this document looks into definitions of morality under two independent systems- Kantianism and Utilitarianism theoretical approaches. This paper seeks to

When considering ethical issues, we have to consider things in a global prospective, because what may be perfectly right for one nation may be looked in a different way from a different

International business ethics challenges the corporate world to deal with questions of what to do in situations where ethical standards come into conflict as a result of the different cultural practices in the nation. Since, there is this dilemma that has progressively troubled the large multinational corporations, international business ethics has arisen to help address these adhesive subject matters. There are several international business ethics discussions on the question of how to act in the home country as opposed to the host country is at the central point of most international corporations. The argument in question is how companies should practice their business according

The status quo is something that seemingly flawed, according to many political theorists. In the writings of Chantal Delsol, the problems of the current international political and legal sphere are examined and deciphered to fix all of the “problems” that, according to Delsol, plague society. In Unjust Justice, she brings a realist approach to international law similar to Hans Morgenthau, arguing that the state of anarchy with is fueled through plurality is more favorable to an international state of monopolized ideals. Grappling with the idealism and realism, Chantal Delsol adopts the ideas of many political theorists to paint a picture of ideal international politics by discussing war and international law from a lens of an idealist while embracing the principles of realism when evaluating morality.