Compare And Contrast Kantianism And Utilitarianism

What the physicians did was unethical since they ignore Dax’s wishes to stop the treatment and let him died. He really wanted to stop suffering from all the pain that he was going through. I know that he was unable to kill himself because his physical condition didn’t allow him neither assisted suicidal was an option however he continually beg to stop the treatment and just let him died. Again this is a right that should have been respected.

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.

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

The third and final reason why I agree that Dax should not have been able to refuse treatment and have other people assist in his death is because Dax Cowart would have been treating himself and those he requested this of as merely a means. According to Kant’s philosophy, “we must always treat people (including ourselves) as ends and not as means only”. (Munson p. 752).

means of starvation and dehydration for weeks. But, miraculously, he and a couple of other

Luckily he made it off the operating table alive, despite the fact that the tube had slipped too far. However, he was paralyzed on his left side and died a few weeks later.

Morality is a complicated matter, one which requires rationality, but is often driven by emotions. A person’s behavior is almost completely driven by emotions and often times emotions are what tell us when something might be wrong or right. Motivation also comes from emotions, so without feelings of anger, depression, frustration and the like we would hardly ever do anything in order to change things in our lives (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 258). Virtue ethics then is concerned with what makes a person virtuous versus vicious when it comes to making moral decisions, with emotions playing an important role. In this paper, I support Aristotle’s emphasis on emotions as a key to being virtuous, especially since emotions tell us what is important and motivate us to act (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 257-258).

Morality is a complex subject and ethical dilemmas yield differing opinions and theories that have manifested through time by intelligent philosophers. There were two influential philosophers’ names Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who formed differing theories, in an attempt to set a uniform approach to ethical dilemmas and morality. Bentham was a firm supporter of Utilitarian theory; which focuses on overall happiness and consequences of an action (EMP 122). While Kant believed in his own theory that moral rules are absolute (EMP 129). Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have few strengths and notable weaknesses, thus proving both theories implausible when compared to

Rubbing his face and beating his hands only temporarily helped his circulation. After he got his feet wet, they froze. His fingers "seemed remote from his body" because he could not move them. The most obvious clues that the man took in were internal.

Looking at this issue form Dax’s point of view is difficult, because he was in a different position than everyone involved in the case. Everyone around him wanted to go through treatment and get better, but he was in so much pain, that he just wanted to end it all. It is hard for people to imagine being in so much pain that they would want to end their life, but it is a condition that some people experience. I could see how it would be frustrating when you are the only one in pain and nobody around you will listen to you and does not let you decide anything for yourself. Although a psychiatrist determined that Dax was not

When watching the second video which explains what happened to Dax my opinions were reinforced. It surprised me that even considering how well his life turned out he still wishes he would have had the freedom to have himself killed, but it does not change my opinion. Even though he was declared competent by his psychiatrists, I am very skeptical that any human being can be trusted with making such a critical decision shortly after such a life changing tragedy. Just because his choice hasn’t changed after the fact doesn’t mean that the majority of people, if put in a similar situation, would act the same. Perhaps I need more knowledge from comparable case studies to have a more informed idea of what most people would do, but to me, he seems like an outlier. Personally, if I were in his situation, I would guess that I would have wanted to die too, but I would hope the people around me would know what’s best for me and wouldn’t allow me to do so. There is one dilemma I came across though that I have no answer for. Should he be forced to pay for treatments he didn’t want? My first inclination is to say no, but then who would? And wouldn’t everyone refuse treatment if it meant they wouldn’t have to pay for

Ethics refers to what people consider good or bad and right or wrong. It is a theory dealing with values that relate to human behaviour; with respect to their actions and purpose. The two most important philosophers that deal with ethics are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Kant’s ethical theory is Kantianism or deontological ethics. Mill’s ethical theory is utilitarianism. Both philosophers’ theories have many differences; Kant’s theory deals with conduct, seeking reason for good action in duty. Mill’s theory deals with consequences and maximizing human happiness. However both Kant and Mill’s ethics relate to the important biblical principal of the Golden Rule.

Teleology, an explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes, has found its place in the construction of many systems of morality such as John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism. In teleological approaches to morality, questions of right and wrong, or the notion what an individual ought to do, are determined by the consequences of a given action. One thinker to reject this idea of consequentialism was Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant endeavors to establish a system of ethics that has no trace of the empirical nature of utilitarianism. To him, “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it and so too does not lie in any principle of

Utilitarians, on the other hand, go against Kant’s idea that there should be absolute moral rules. They believe that moral rules should be followed if the consequence for one’s action brings about the most happiness and the least amount of pain. In Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill

The main similarity between Kant’s ethics and utilitarianism is that there is an objective good which can be wanted. Kant argued that one should act in a way that can be willed for all other people. One example, you shouldn’t lie because you wouldn’t want everyone else to lie. Utilitarianism argues that one should act in a way that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Continuing with the same example, one shouldn’t lie if avoiding from the lie would produce more good for a greater number of people. The main difference between Kant’s deontology and utilitarianism is that Kant viewed an action as right or wrong without respect to the consequences, whereas utilitarianism views an action as right or wrong only with reference to the consequences of the action. Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism, whereas Kant’s theory is