Ethical Analysis of the Parable of the Sadhu Essay

The main point of the story of Rahab is that God rewards people, regardless of their station or past sins, who put their faith in Him.

While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human

The ethical responsibility of a multinational corporation is making sure that they are responsible for their own actions. When it comes to operating in a different country a corporation should go in their remembering that they are there for a temporary time. The important thing is that they are there as visitors that have a privilege to be there. A corporation should be able to work in a different country and create as minimal damage as possible. A corporation should be responsible for all the damage that happens due to their operation in the country. In Savages, the oil corporations went into Ecuador to operate but failed to clean up the mess that was left behind. The oil company did only what they said they would clean. Meaning that they did only the very minimal that they agreed to do. Although some might argue and say that the oil company did all that needed to be done. They are still responsible for all the damage that they have caused in Ecuador. It is not morally right for the company to just leave and not help Ecuador with all the damage that would have not been there if it was not for the oil companies operating in their country. It is not fair to the people to have to deal with all these problems

Kant believed achieving the intended end-result of the actions is often out of our control; therefore, the morality of our actions does not depend on the outcome or consequences. He believed the will behind the actions is the only thing that can be controlled (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.) Therefore, the consequences of our actions are morally irrelevant.

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

He believed that motivation is the key source to acting from duty; the motivation of being a moral person. This means that an action should not be done because the outcome makes you happy, but because it is the morally right thing to do. This contrast Utilitarianism, as the idea of happiness is a requirement of morality, the happiness of the community determines morality. Kant also does not encourage using people as a means, but as a means to an end. Kant believes that because human beings have value, they should not be used just to fulfill a purpose. In the transplant case, the doctor would be using the one as a means to preserve the lives of the five. This action would be also be deemed morally wrong by

This theory states that the power to do what is morally correct and just is within each and every one of us. However, this theory also states that some actions may be wrong even though these actions may have resulted in positive or wanted outcomes. Kant strongly advocated that individuals make decisions or actions based on concrete evidence and not let themselves be guided by human emotions. Why? Because human emotions are entirely unreliable and can lead individuals to make irrational decisions. In essence, Kantian Duty-Based Ethics would support the notion that the individual not be tortured . . . even if saving this individual would cost thousands or millions of

out if the sadhu lived or died. I can attest, though, that the sadhu lives on in his story. He lives in

My initial impression of The Kantian Perspective, was that it made a lot more sense than utilitarianism. Being raised in a Christian household, I immediately agreed with the idea that the morality of one’s behavior is based on the actions they take and their reasoning for taking said actions. It made sense to me that the results of one actions could not be the basis for judging their character because intent and choosing between the universal rights and wrongs are HUGE parts of biblical principles (i.e The Ten Commandments).

He acted according to Kant theory deciding what was morally good because he could not live with the fact that he let a child be kidnapped when he knew kidnapping is against the law, and is morally wrong.

To summarize, Kant’s moral theory states that morality is based on the intent of the action, the consequences have no impact on the morality of the action. For example, the assassination attempts on Hitler would be considered wrong, per Kant. Even if one of the attempts had succeeded, the assassin would have done so with the intent of murder; potentially saving millions of lives by ending the war is not taken into consideration. Kant’s moral theory is broken down into four separate components: the will, duty, maxim, and the categorical imperative. The will of an action is essentially the intent, or what the individual wanted to happen. The duty of an action is the

Carl Zimmer, wrote an essay “whose life would you save?” that asks why humans make the decisions they make and the philosophy behind it. Zimmer explains that Kant believed that pure reason alone could lead us to moral truths. He declared that it was wrong to use someone for your own ends and that it was right to act only according to principles that everyone could follow. For the sake of understanding who Kant is and his views, the philosopher Kant was a German philosopher and a deontologist; he believed that consequences don’t matter because moral judgment is contained in the act alone. He suggest the Categorical Imperative which means that morality is derived from rationality and all moral judgments are rationally supported. So, just as rational thought leads us to an objective reality, so to as there is an objective morality we can locate through the same process. Kant believes that the Categorical Imperative is a universal moral law that holds up regardless of context and circumstance. What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. The Categorical Imperative is divided into three maxims. The first is universality, which means that you should only do something if it would be okay if everybody did it all the time. You would know if what you were doing is correct if you would be okay with everyone else on the earth doing the exact same thing. The second maxim is that every human being must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end. You are never allowed to

However, if placed in Jim’s shoes and being obliged to make a decision, I would probably reach out for greater consequences of my action and kill one to save nineteen. Consequently, maximizing the outcome of the pleasure even though one is hurt; then possibly live with my conscious benefiting from Kant’s justification - all that matters is the goodwill behind the duty. Here I feel a logical discrepancy in my above statements and need to find a way to elucidate this predicament. What is the difference between deliberately killing one by pushing the man over the bridge – supposedly

The reading is interesting, because it provides a broader perspective of the human will. Kant makes it easy for the reader to understand his message by providing definitions for the key words appearing in the text. He defines and contrasts rational and irrational beings, which makes it simple for the reader to differentiate between the two throughout the reading. The definitions are credible and conform to other readings, which makes the information provided valid. Kant explains the relationship between the imperative principle and human will, which explains various human actions. He uses practical examples to clarify and elaborate the situation, which is efficient. Gaining insight into the author’s logic reveals how a person’s objective choice relies on that person’s will. According to the imperative principle, the justified end to people’s decision relies on their current state. For this reason, the author uses the lie example, where persons are forced to lie about something due to the difficult situations they find themselves. Nonetheless, such actions cannot be universal, because they are not morally right. This signifies the fact that some subjective choices people make cannot apply to the entire world. They cannot become universal objective principles. It is true to say that it contradicts people’s will to consider all scenarios from a single point of view. Justifying scenarios from one point of

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.