Assiginment 1 Ethical

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.

Forschler, S. (2013). Kantian and consequentialist ethics: The gap can be bridged. Metaphilosophy, 44(1/2), 88-104.

Although, one main difference between these two theories, is that Kantianism can lead to good or bad consequences, while utilitarianism focuses on the positive outcomes. Very different from these two theories, and from themselves, are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism is a theory of ethics that judges the morality of an action solely based by its consequences. This theory of consequentialism is like utilitarianism and Kantianism because they both are putting a strong focus into the outcomes of an action. So far, the outcomes have been important, although this ends with another code of ethics, deontology. Deontology instead focuses on the decisions based off duty and obligation, disregarding the consequences of those

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

As one maybe able to see based upon the case summary, many ethical issues can be determined from many points of views, including the employee’s, management’s, and consumers. However, one must be more acquainted with the understanding of an ethical issue, or problem, in order to better comprehend each point of view. Ethical issues, or problems, typically involve conflict of some sort, choosing between right, or desirable, or wrong, or undesirable, alternatives as the action. Typically, ethical issues, or dilemmas, are situations in which individuals must choose in order to do an option or not to do the option based upon a certain reasoning or framework. Many individuals think of ethical issues as moral dilemmas, or issues.

Two opposing views about morality in ethics are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism (in this case, extreme utilitarianism) is endorsed by J.J.C. Smart, and it tells us that in order to determine which actions are right and which actions are wrong we must first consider the consequences of each option. Kantianism is based on the philosophy of German philosopher Immanuel Kant and endorses fairness, universalizability of actions, and humanity. Both views offer a way to figure out a solution; however, each view is very likely to give solutions completely opposite from the other view.

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

The ethical dilemma is a situation by which it’s difficult to determine whether a situation is can be handled without disappointing both sides. Therefore, an ethical dilemma exists when the right thing to do is clear or when members of the healthcare team cannot agree on the right thing to do. Ethical dilemmas require negotiation of different points of view (potter, Perry, Stockert, & Hall 2011pg 78).

Kant’s theory explains about the morality of the actions of a man is judged in terms of the consequences or the results of the action.

After reading Chapter 5, I found more affinity with the Kantian philosophy than the utilitarianism’s focus on the consequence of the human act. Unlike the utilitarian emphasis on the consequence of human act and the disregard for the motive and the act itself, Kant’s philosophy counted the motive and the act as essential elements in determining the morality of an action. If the motive is pure and the act itself is good, then the act is moral, regardless of the consequence (MacKinnon, 2012).

For this reading, I understood it to be that Kant believes that our goals or actions are guided by these two kinds of ethics: the first one being that those who judges the rightness or wrongness of an action are based on the consequences of that action. This to me is the belief that people do certain actions or deeds only if it benefits the general population or the group. Subsequently, this kind of ethic is also considered as utilitarianism, which is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or done for the benefit of the majority. Furthermore, I might add an excellent quote by another Philosopher named Jeremy Bentham, wherein he states that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” By contrast, the second kind of ethic according to Kant is the type of normative ethical theory that holds that actions are intrinsically good or bad and that their rightness or wrongness depend on their consequences. Subsequently, this type of ethic and/or belief, also known as non-consequentialist, is done in the notion that regardless of the consequence, that it is for the good of the situation or the person; and that it is one’s duty to act in accordance to the greater good.

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.

There is little doubt that Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics are by far the two most important ethical theories throughout contemporary philosophy. Though both attempt to answer questions about morality and behavior, the two theories have many fundamental differences: one evaluates actions in terms of the utility they produce whereas the other considers whether actions fulfill duty; one emphasizes consequence where the other highlights intentions; one sees desire as essential while the other precludes it and values reason. For years, philosophers have raised many objections towards each of the two theories, some of which are very compelling. In this paper, I will introduce and explain two famous objections to Classical Utilitarianism and anticipate how a non-utilitarian Consequentialist might try to avoid these problems. I will also describe the basic idea of Kantian Ethics and explain why Kant’s theory is less vulnerable to the harsh criticisms faced by Utilitarianism.

Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century moral philosopher who disliked the values of the popular ideals of utilitarianism. Thus, he created his own philosophy known as Kantian ethics. According to Kant, the most important factor in determining if an action is ethical is an individual’s motive. In his teachings, Kant describes that the true rightness of an action depends on whether or not an individual fulfills his or her duty to be moral not, the consequences of the actions taken. Kant seems to deem that a moral action is not based on human emotions nor is it based on self-interest but rather, a moral action is taken due to a sense of duty.

Utilitarian moral theory is based upon the principle “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” or as Mill has termed it, “the greater happiness principle” . That is to say, that an action undertaken should strive to maximise happiness and minimise pain and that this is what determines whether or not an action is the right thing to do. Kantian moral theory, on the other hand, is based upon the concept that the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by whether or not it follows the moral rule and whether or not it can be universally applied. One of the most immediate differences that one can see between the two theories is that Kantian moral theory is concerned with the intent of an action whereas utilitarianism only concerns itself with the end result of an action. This difference is key to understanding the differing perspectives of the two schools of thought. In the aforementioned moral dilemma, a teacher must decide between lying about the test results of one of their students which would result in the student being granted a scholarship which is necessary for them to attend university in order to enter a career path in which the teacher believes they could contribute greatly or whether they