Ethics And Kantian Ethics

One of the most frequently debated topics in bioethics is the morality of abortion, or the ending of a pregnancy without physically giving birth to an infant. Often times abortions are categorized into either spontaneous, a natural miscarriage; induced or intentional, which is premeditated and for any reason; or therapeutic, which albeit intentional, its sole purpose is to save the mother’s life. It seems however that moral conflicts on issue mainly arise when discussing induced abortions. In general, people universally agree it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person and in some people’s eyes induced abortions are the intentional killings of innocent persons, thus making them immoral. However not all individuals view fetuses as persons and consequentially argue it is not morally wrong to kill them.

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.

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

When we talk about whether or not a person is ethically right, we can look at the actions that he or she may partake in. These actions maybe studied in different situations such as the one that we were told to evaluate. While leaving the grocery store, one witnesses an old man struggling with his oxygen tank. Without thinking, you lift the tank and help the elderly man. This action is a kind gesture, but would we consider this a moral act? One could analyze this situation with two different ethical theories, by Kantian and/or Aristotelian views.

I will be talking to you about the ethical theory known Kantianism and the subject of abortion, and state why Kantianism rejects this act because it violates a number of Kant’s ideas and principles concerning rationality and morality. I agree with Kantianism’s verdict and here is why. In this argument, I will be using Kant’s Principle of Universalizability and ideas of Irrationality and Immorality and the “Golden Rule” to state why abortion is immoral.

Throughout the previous thirty-eight years ago since the U.S Supreme Court legalized abortion as a medical procedure, the topic of abortion has spurned several heated debates both socially and politically. In such a heightened contemporary context, it would be rather appropriate to consider the moral application of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, one of the greatest minds in the eighteenth centuries, to the enduring morality debate over abortion. Setting the discussion regarding the morality and immorality of abortion within the Kantian ethics framework provides one with a view that transition from the frequently inflammatory pro-choice and anti-abortion discussion points and towards a deep lucid, philosophical argument of such a controversial topic.

V for Vendetta by Alan Moore-- a graphic novel with the man who was tortured from room number V at Larkhill-- the man who now goes by the name of “V” and is the main character in V for Vendetta. Initially, he comes off as having an unstable mind and debatably without any morals. Contrastly, throughout the story’s progression, his character becomes deeper and more profound, showing an underlying grand scheme to overthrow the dystopian and totalitarian government of Great Britain-- with an obvious indifference to the actual value of human life. V’s self-evaluation and mentality is that of a deity-- he views himself as the ultimate authority, and, regardless of blowing government buildings up, killing people, and terrorizing his own country, he

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

This revised/reorganized fifth edition of a classic exposition of a secular "principlist" approach to bioethics makes the text more accessible to readers who are not well versed in moral theory. The book addresses critiques of the approach as presented in earlier additions; new developments in theory; and new issues in research, medicine, and health care. The original framework containing four clusters of secular principles--respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice--is upheld as "the common morality" accepted by "all morally serious persons." Often referred to as "the Georgetown mantra" (after Georgetown's Kennedy Institute of

Kant’s theory of deontology and Mill’s theory of utilitarianism provide starkly different approaches to assigning moral value to ethical dilemmas, two modern dilemmas being commercial surrogacy and physician-assisted suicide. This essay will expound upon the process of deciding moral value within each ethical theory and then apply this decision process to the two ethical dilemmas. Arguments will be posited in support or in opposition to the proposed ethical dilemmas according to the ethical theories. The discussion will revolve around the theories as proposed by the specific authors mentioned above in their relevant works.

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

Immanuel Kant and Aristotle are two of the most prominent philosophers on ethics and morals. Each has their own idea about human life and what the highest good is. It has even been said that in his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant disproves Aristotle’s view. In order to prove that Kant successfully disproves Aristotle’s theory, we must first understand both theories. After a successful understanding has been acquired only then can we prove that Kant’s completely disproves Aristotle’s theory.

In the late 18th century one of the most influential philosophers by the name of Immanuel Kant introduced the third major ethical philosophy, Deontology. The basis behind Deontology is that people are duty bound to act morally by certain standards despite the outcome. Determining whether a person’s actions are morally right involves look at the intent of the actions. Like other ethic theories, Deontologist applies the golden rule of treating other people the way you would want them to treat you. Deontology can be broken down into three different theories: agent-centered, patient centered, and contractualist. Each branch of Deontology can be traced back in some way to Immanuel Kant. Can Deontology be applied to today’s society?

German philosopher Kant was first to introduce the Kantian ethics; hence, the named after him. According to Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, Immanuel Kant was Unitarianism’s rival; he believed actions that are taboo should be completely prohibited at all times. For instance, murder should be prohibited. Even though nowadays a person cannot be punished if death is involved as a self defense, from Kant’s perspective this is still prohibited, although sometimes these actions bring more happiness to the big majority of people than sorrow. Kant stated that before acting, one should ask his/her self: am I acting rationally and in a way that everyone will act as I purpose to act? Is my action going to respect the moral law or just my own purpose? If the answer to those questions is a no, the action must be abandoned. Kant’s theory is an example of the deontological theory that was developed in the age of enlightenment. According to Elizabeth, these theories say that “the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty.”( Anscombe, 2001) Kant said that morality is built based on what he called “Hypothetical Imperatives”, but rather principles called “Categorical Imperatives” he referred to it as the supreme principle of morality. (Texas A&M University, n.d.) Cavico and Mujtaba reported on their book that Kant stated that morality

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)